Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 19:38:37 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] entry: Pass pt_regs to
 irqentry_exit_cond_resched()
Message-ID: <YvFKHaRdOkg5RHtv@zn.tnic>
References: <20220805173009.3128098-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20220805173009.3128098-2-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <YvDnkALyHl77R/Ug@zn.tnic>
 <YvFJGxU0k492npYT@iweiny-desk3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YvFJGxU0k492npYT@iweiny-desk3>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 10:34:19AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> I thought about that but generally have been steered away from using bool
> arguments like this.

The reason being?

> Looking this over I think this may be a reasonable use of a flag like
> that.
>
> I'm not sure if this series is going to land given the discussion of
> performance.

Well, the only way to talk performance is to have something to measure
it with. But let me finish going through the rest of your set first.

> Would this clean up be welcome on its own?  I'm willing to respin
> this patch and submit if so.

Depends on who steered you away from the bool thing and why?

:-)

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette