Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:57:58 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: =?utf-8?B?5rKz5ZCI6Iux5a6PIC8gS0FXQUnvvIxISURFSElSTw==?= 
	<hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        =?utf-8?B?5bmz5p2+6ZuF5bezIC8gSElSQU1BVFXvvIxNQVNBTUk=?= 
	<masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Subject: Re: [V5 PATCH 2/4] panic/x86: Allow cpus to save registers even if
 they are looping in NMI context
Message-ID: <20151125095758.GC29499@pd.tnic>
References: <20151120093641.4285.97253.stgit@softrs>
 <20151120093646.4285.62259.stgit@softrs>
 <20151124104853.GC3785@pd.tnic>
 <04EAB7311EE43145B2D3536183D1A84454A2A425@GSjpTKYDCembx31.service.hitachi.net>
 <20151125085620.GA29499@pd.tnic>
 <04EAB7311EE43145B2D3536183D1A84454A2B929@GSjpTKYDCembx31.service.hitachi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <04EAB7311EE43145B2D3536183D1A84454A2B929@GSjpTKYDCembx31.service.hitachi.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 888
Lines: 29

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 09:46:37AM +0000, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> Does *old* code mean the code without this patch *series* ?

Yes.

> I prefer this, but we might want to add some more prefix or suffix.
> For example, "conditionally_run_crash_nmi_callback".

That's unnecessary IMO. If you need to express that, you could write
that in a comment above the function definition. Anyone who looks at
the code then will know that it is conditional, like so many other
kernel functions. :)

> Thanks for your deep review!

Thanks for the patience!

:-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/