On 06/10/2019 08:57 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 08:09 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed
>>>> + * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) {
>>>> + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap))
>>>
>>> don't need an 'if A if B', can do 'if A && B'
>>
>> Which will make it a very lengthy condition check.
>
> Well, is there any problem line-breaking the if condition?
>
> if (A && B && C &&
> D && E )
>
> Also, if it's used only to decide the return value, maybe would be fine
> to do somethink like that:
>
> return (A && B && C &&
> D && E );
Got it. But as Dave and Matthew had pointed out earlier, the current x86
implementation has better readability. Hence will probably stick with it.
