[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <7315bfd9-f6aa-9cf9-b262-da1a600a65be@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:19:31 +0530
From: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/15] x86/entry: define _TIF_ALLWORK_MASK flags
explicitly
On Thursday 08 December 2016 11:38 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> The _TIF_ALLWORK_MASK macro automatically includes the least-significant
> 16 bits of the thread_info flags, which is less than obvious and tends
> to create confusion and surprises when reading or modifying the code.
>
> Define the flags explicitly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
For the version with swapped _TIF_SINGLESTEP and _TIF_NEED_RESCHED
flags.
Reviewed-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
--
cheers,
Kamalesh.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists