> On Jun 22, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:28 AM Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> +unsigned long read_task_fsbase(struct task_struct *task)
>>>> +{
>>>> + unsigned long fsbase;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (task == current) {
>>>> + fsbase = read_fsbase();
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * XXX: This will not behave as expected if called
>>>> + * if fsindex != 0. This preserves an existing bug
>>>> + * that will be fixed.
>>>
>>> I'm late to this party, but let me ask the obvious question:
>>>
>>> Why is the existing bug not fixed as the first patch in the series?
>>
>> IIRC that was how I did it in the old version of this code. I think
>> it did it because it was less messy to fix the bug after cleaning up
>> the code, but I could be remembering wrong.
>
> Fair enough. Though the general rule is: Fix bugs first and then do
> features, unless you really need the extra step to fix it proper.
>
> Now in that case the real question is whether this is a bug or just a
> slight incorrectness which has no practical impact. If it's the latter,
> then introduce the new function which does the right thing first and make
> the new fs/gs base functions use it without having a blurb about preserving
> bugs.
The idea was to have one patch that was intended to have no observable effect
(pure refactor) and another to change behavior in an easily reviewable way. I
should probably not have used the word bug :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
>
