On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:29:57PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct, at 01:10:17PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I'm entirely lost as to which patch we're talking about by now ;-)
> Heh, this one from Vincent,
Seems like a sensible thing to do, and I suppose I should go finish my
(and yours) update_rq_clock() patches that supersede the patch referred
to in that thing and is depended upon.
It might make sense to have helper functions to evaluate those
conditions, because currently there's two instances of each, once in the
branch selection and then again (but inverted, we miss the == case fwiw)
in the return NULL case.