On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 10:56:09AM +0800, zhang warden wrote: > > > > On May 7, 2024, at 10:41, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 10:21:40AM +0800, zhang warden wrote: > >> > >> > >>> > >>> transition state. With this marcos renamed, comments are not > >>> necessary at this point. > >>> > >> Sorry for my careless, the comment still remains in the code. However, > >> comment in the code do no harms here. Maybe it can be kept. > > > > The comments aren't actually correct. > > > > For example, KLP_TRANSITION_UNPATCHED doesn't always mean "transitioning > > to unpatched state". Sometimes it means "transitioning *from* unpatched > > state". > > > > -- > > Josh > > OK, I got it. I will remove the comment later. After all, comment is > not necessary at this point after we rename the macros. Yeah, removing them altogether might be best, as the meaning of these can vary slightly depending on the operation (patching vs unpatching), and also depending on where it's stored (task->patch_state vs klp_target_state). -- Josh
