On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calde...@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
