From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: leif.lindholm@linaro.org (Leif Lindholm) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 12:56:39 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v4 6/8] arm64/efi: move SetVirtualAddressMap() to UEFI stub In-Reply-To: References: <1419245944-2424-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1419245944-2424-7-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20150107120608.GJ3827@bivouac.eciton.net> <20150107122515.GK3827@bivouac.eciton.net> Message-ID: <20150107125639.GL3827@bivouac.eciton.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:30:27PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> >> + kernel_neon_begin(); /* disables preemption */ \ > >> > > >> > Same nitpick. > >> > > >> > >> Is there anything wrong with that? > > > > I said nitpick. > > > > My (very minor) objection is that a (very reasonable) comment is added > > to existing functionality by a patch that adds new functionality. It > > makes the git blame/praise output less clear. > > > >> Would you prefer the comment to be on a separate line? > > > > I would _prefer_ the comments to be a separate patch. > > But again, a nitpick. > > > > Well, adding the comment is relevant to this patch, as we need to > disable preemption now before switching to the new address space. In > fact, it might be better even to drop the comment, and add an explicit > (if redundant) preempt_disable/preempt_enable pair. That would be more clear, yes. / Leif