On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 10:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:37:04PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > @@ -492,6 +493,9 @@ do_general_protection(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code) > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "entry code didn't wake RCU"); > > cond_local_irq_enable(regs); > > > > + if (user_mode(regs) && (fixup_umip_exception(regs) == true)) > > + return; > > I'm thinking > > if (user_mode(regs) && fixup_umip_exception(regs)) > return; > > is actually easier to read. In a previous version Andy Lutomirsky suggested that if (user_mode(regs) && (fixup_umip_exception(regs) == 0)) was easier to read :). Although at the time fixup_umip_exception returned a numeric value. Now it only returns true/false for successful/failed emulation. If with true/false not comparing to true makes it easier to read, I will make the change. Thanks and BR, Ricardo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
