On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 07:17:15AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 2/6/23 04:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c > > @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static long __apm_bios_call(void *_call) > > > > apm_irq_save(flags); > > firmware_restrict_branch_speculation_start(); > > - ibt = ibt_save(); > > + ibt = ibt_save(true); > > My only nit with these is the bare use of 'true'/'false'. It's > impossible to tell at the call-site what the 'true' means. So, if you > happen to respin these and see a nice way to remedy this I'd appreciate it. I've often wished for a named argument extention to C, much like named initializers, such that one can write: ibt_save(.disable = true); Because the thing you mention is very common with boolean arguments, the what gets lost in the argument name and true/false just isn't very telling. But yeah, even if by some miracle all compiler guys were like, YES! and implemented it tomorrow, we couldn't use it for a good few years anyway :-/
