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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221011030637.322874-1-ye.xingchen@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20221011030637.322874-1-ye.xingchen@zte.com.cn>
From:   John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:31:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CANDhNCr=umLmH4EV+KXhXPNK9UK0tD1ka3NhaS2BEdDKpO=MVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] timers: replace in_irq() with in_hardirq()
To:     yexingchen116@gmail.com
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ye xingchen <ye.xingchen@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 8:06 PM <yexingchen116@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: ye xingchen <ye.xingchen@zte.com.cn>
>
> Replace the obsolete and ambiguos macro in_irq() with new
> macro in_hardirq().

Would it make sense to replace both instances of in_irq() in that file at once?

thanks
-john