On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Ricardo Neri ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com wrote:
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.
I think == true is silly :)
--Andy