Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1480082 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] x86: squash lines for simple wrapper functions

Started byThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
First post2016-09-09 16:50 +0200
Last post2016-09-10 11:20 +0200
Articles 4 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH] x86: squash lines for simple wrapper functions Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-09-09 16:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] x86: squash lines for simple wrapper functions Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-09-10 06:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] x86: squash lines for simple wrapper functions Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-09-10 08:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] x86: squash lines for simple wrapper functions Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-09-10 11:20 +0200

#1480082 — Re: [PATCH] x86: squash lines for simple wrapper functions

FromThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date2016-09-09 16:50 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: squash lines for simple wrapper functions
Message-ID<sfvhU-4gq-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> >  static unsigned long set_apic_id(unsigned int id)
> >  {
> > -	unsigned long x;
> > -
> >  	/* maskout x2apic_extra_bits ? */
> > -	x = id;
> > -	return x;
> > +	return id;
> >  }
> 
> This was clearly left there to document a quirk and as a placeholder for future 
> changes.

Keeping the comment and rewording it to:

	/* CHECKME: Do we need to mask out the xapic extra bits */

should be good enough. The variable dance is not really giving any value.

Thanks,

	tglx

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1480503

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2016-09-10 06:40 +0200
Message-ID<sfIf8-3Yu-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1480082
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> > >  static unsigned long set_apic_id(unsigned int id)
> > >  {
> > > -	unsigned long x;
> > > -
> > >  	/* maskout x2apic_extra_bits ? */
> > > -	x = id;
> > > -	return x;
> > > +	return id;
> > >  }
> > 
> > This was clearly left there to document a quirk and as a placeholder for future 
> > changes.
> 
> Keeping the comment and rewording it to:
> 
> 	/* CHECKME: Do we need to mask out the xapic extra bits */
> 
> should be good enough. The variable dance is not really giving any value.

Yeah, sure - my point was that the mindless removal is wrong.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1480508

FromThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date2016-09-10 08:00 +0200
Message-ID<sfJux-4CL-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1480503
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> > > >  static unsigned long set_apic_id(unsigned int id)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	unsigned long x;
> > > > -
> > > >  	/* maskout x2apic_extra_bits ? */
> > > > -	x = id;
> > > > -	return x;
> > > > +	return id;
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > This was clearly left there to document a quirk and as a placeholder for future 
> > > changes.
> > 
> > Keeping the comment and rewording it to:
> > 
> > 	/* CHECKME: Do we need to mask out the xapic extra bits */
> > 
> > should be good enough. The variable dance is not really giving any value.
> 
> Yeah, sure - my point was that the mindless removal is wrong.

He kept the comment. The rewording is a bonus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1480546

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2016-09-10 11:20 +0200
Message-ID<sfMC6-6O6-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1480508
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> > > > >  static unsigned long set_apic_id(unsigned int id)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -	unsigned long x;
> > > > > -
> > > > >  	/* maskout x2apic_extra_bits ? */
> > > > > -	x = id;
> > > > > -	return x;
> > > > > +	return id;
> > > > >  }
> > > > 
> > > > This was clearly left there to document a quirk and as a placeholder for future 
> > > > changes.
> > > 
> > > Keeping the comment and rewording it to:
> > > 
> > > 	/* CHECKME: Do we need to mask out the xapic extra bits */
> > > 
> > > should be good enough. The variable dance is not really giving any value.
> > 
> > Yeah, sure - my point was that the mindless removal is wrong.
> 
> He kept the comment. The rewording is a bonus.

Ok, fair enough.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web