On Thu, Jan 29 2026 at 17:00, Kevin Brodsky wrote: > On 29/01/2026 14:11, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >>>> - * Calling convention is the same as for syscall_exit_to_user_mode() and >>>> it >>>> - * returns with all work handled and interrupts disabled. The caller must >>>> - * invoke exit_to_user_mode() before actually switching to user mode to >>>> - * make the final state transitions. Interrupts must stay disabled between >>>> - * return from this function and the invocation of exit_to_user_mode(). >>>> + * Calling convention is the same as for syscall_exit_to_user_mode(). The >>>> + * caller must invoke local_irq_disable(), __exit_to_user_mode_prepare() >>>> and >>> Shouldn't it be syscall_exit_to_user_mode_prepare() rather than >>> __exit_to_user_mode_prepare()? The former has extra calls (e.g. rseq). >> Perhaps we can just delete these comments — at present only generic >> entry and arm64 use it, and nowhere else needs it; after the refactoring >> the comments now seem rather unclear. > > Agreed, the comments are essentially describing what each function > calls; considering how short they are, directly reading the code is > probably easier.
No. Please keep them. There is more information in them than just the pure 'what's' called.
