[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6594a21f-6372-0b69-3bb3-6ed1b1387e6e@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:18:39 +0100
From: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/14] KVM: s390: Refactor absolute vm mem_op function
On 25/01/2023 22.26, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> Remove code duplication with regards to the CHECK_ONLY flag.
> Decrease the number of indents.
> No functional change indented.
>
> Suggested-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>
>
> Cosmetic only, can be dropped.
I'm torn between unnecessary-code-churn and
nice-to-get-rid-of-one-indentation-level here ... anyway, patch looks sane
to me, so:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists