[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v9d0qsi3.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:58:28 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: ira.weiny@...el.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3.1] entry: Pass irqentry_state_t by reference
On Mon, Nov 23 2020 at 22:09, ira weiny wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
>
> Currently struct irqentry_state_t only contains a single bool value
> which makes passing it by value is reasonable. However, future patches
> add information to this struct. This includes the PKRS thread state,
> included in this series, as well as information to store kmap reference
> tracking and PKS global state outside this series. In total, we
> anticipate 2 new 32 bit fields and an integer field to be added to the
> struct beyond the existing bool value.
Well yes, but why can't you provide at least in the comment section
below the '---' a pointer to the latest version of this reference muck
and PKS global state if you can't explain at least the concept of the
two things here?
It's one thing that you anticipate something but a different thing
whether it's the right thing to do.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists