[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJF2gTR+7phq0uaQOH_xtAju-q59BFDy2Nwf4MB=n3ZzV4W6Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 10:01:52 +0800
From: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
Cc: arnd@...db.de, palmer@...osinc.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, luto@...nel.org, conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
heiko@...ech.de, jszhang@...nel.org, lazyparser@...il.com,
falcon@...ylab.org, chenhuacai@...nel.org, apatel@...tanamicro.com,
atishp@...shpatra.org, palmer@...belt.com,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, mark.rutland@....com,
zouyipeng@...wei.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
David.Laight@...lab.com, chenzhongjin@...wei.com,
greentime.hu@...ive.com, andy.chiu@...ive.com, ben@...adent.org.uk,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next V10 06/10] riscv: entry: Consolidate
ret_from_kernel_thread into ret_from_fork
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 6:12 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> guoren@...nel.org writes:
>
> > From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>
> >
> > The ret_from_kernel_thread() behaves similarly with ret_from_fork(),
> > the only difference is whether call the fn(arg) or not, this can be
> > achieved by testing fn is NULL or not, I.E s0 is 0 or not. Many
> > architectures have done the same thing, it make entry.S more clean.
>
> Nit: "it makes".
Okay.
>
>
> Björn
--
Best Regards
Guo Ren
Powered by blists - more mailing lists