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.
Thanks and BR,
Ricardo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
