[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160910043533.GB6061@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 06:35:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com>,
Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>,
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>,
Wei Jiangang <weijg.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: squash lines for simple wrapper functions
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists