On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:32:00PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > Could you please invert the conditional? I had to read it 3 times to > make sure it was correct given the comment that precedes it. E.g. this > is preferable, > > if (efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP)) > ret = efi_call((void *)__va(tab->function), (u64)which, a1, a2, > a3, a4, a5); > else > ret = efi_call_virt_pointer(tab, function, (u64)which, a1, a2, > a3, a4, a5);
Sure, no problem! I generally default to checking for the more common condition first, but I definitely see how that makes the code kind of hard to read, in this case. I'll send another version shortly. Thanks, Matt!
