Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:57:06 -0500
From: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>, Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/platform/UV: Fix support for EFI_OLD_MEMMAP after
 BIOS callback updates
Message-ID: <20161019125706.GB207809@stormcage.americas.sgi.com>
References: <1476794858-200667-1-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com>
 <20161019113200.GE31476@codeblueprint.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161019113200.GE31476@codeblueprint.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 652
Lines: 17

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:32:00PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> Could you please invert the conditional? I had to read it 3 times to
> make sure it was correct given the comment that precedes it. E.g. this
> is preferable,
> 
> 	if (efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP))
> 		ret = efi_call((void *)__va(tab->function), (u64)which, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5);
> 	else
> 		ret = efi_call_virt_pointer(tab, function, (u64)which, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5);

Sure, no problem!  I generally default to checking for the more common
condition first, but I definitely see how that makes the code kind of
hard to read, in this case.

I'll send another version shortly.

Thanks, Matt!