Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:33:55 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] powerpc/interrupt: Refactor
 prep_irq_for_user_exit()
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
References: <809d316bf5f1a81acdd69e220c13e716dac24f53.1622818556.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
        <3fbef68e1cffc0ebbbad1893e4fb9426b0915039.1622818556.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
        <1623378421.ayihg84s3a.astroid@bobo.none>
        <4f21c7c2-d04b-dcb6-09ad-562a2c3cf88f@csgroup.eu>
In-Reply-To: <4f21c7c2-d04b-dcb6-09ad-562a2c3cf88f@csgroup.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <1623900771.37yjadhzel.astroid@bobo.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of June 15, 2021 6:37 pm:
>=20
>=20
> Le 11/06/2021 =C3=A0 04:30, Nicholas Piggin a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of June 5, 2021 12:56 am:
>>> prep_irq_for_user_exit() is a superset of
>>> prep_irq_for_kernel_enabled_exit().
>>>
>>> Refactor it.
>>=20
>> I like the refactoring, but now prep_irq_for_user_exit() is calling
>> prep_irq_for_kernel_enabled_exit(), which seems like the wrong naming.
>>=20
>> You could re-name prep_irq_for_kernel_enabled_exit() to
>> prep_irq_for_enabled_exit() maybe? Or it could be
>> __prep_irq_for_enabled_exit() then prep_irq_for_kernel_enabled_exit()
>> and prep_irq_for_user_exit() would both call it.
>=20
> I renamed it prep_irq_for_enabled_exit().
>=20
> And I realised that after patch 4, prep_irq_for_enabled_exit() has become=
 a trivial function used=20
> only once.
>=20
> So I swapped patches 1/2 with patches 3/4 and added a 5th one to squash p=
rep_irq_for_enabled_exit()=20
> into its caller.
>=20
> You didn't have any comment on patch 4 (that is now patch 2) ?

I think it's okay, just trying to hunt down some apparent big-endian bug=20
with my series. I can't see any problems with yours though, thanks for
rebasing them, I'll take a better look when I can.

Thanks,
Nick