Hi Ritesh,

> Date: 2026-11-15 11:17:37+0530
> From: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
>
> Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > From the surrounding similar calls, the intention seems obvious: this
> > seems intended to check for a prefix.
> >
> 
> Could be, however the existing code is not functionally wrong either.
> 
> I agree it would have been nicer if all three were consistent. However,
> x86 handles the same parameters with exact matches, so if anything "auto"
> is the one doing the right thing here :)
> 
> But making "on"/"off" exact matches on powerpc now could change
> behaviour for someone passing e.g. "offline" today, so I'd rather leave
> those alone too.
> 
> > However, I do not understand this code, so take my reading with a grain
> > of salt.
> >
> > Fixes: a048a07d7f453 ("powerpc/64s: Add support for a store forwarding barrier at kernel entry/exit")
> 
> IMHO, I don't think this patch fixes anything functional. So, I don't
> think it will be correct to call this as: "Fix off-by-one bug" or 
> add fixes tag to it.
> And so, I would suggest, we leave leave today's code as is, based on the
> previous reasoning.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >
> > I found this while looking into replacing this code with calls to
> > strprefix().
> >
> 
> For your conversion, I think, we should keep today's behaviour as is.
> Maybe streq() for "auto" and strprefix() for "on" and "off", which means
> there is is nothing to change or fix.

Thanks!  I'll do that.


Have a lovely day!
Alex

> 
> -ritesh
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>