On 19/02/2025 10:34 am, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 19.02.2025 11:29, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 19/02/2025 10:02 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Avoid using the same literal number (8) in two distinct places. >> You say two places but this is only one hunk. I presume you mean >> SIF_PM_MASK as the other place. > Indeed. Somewhere there needs to be a literal number. Just that it should > be only one place rather than two. Obviously that other place isn't > touched, and hence isn't visible in the patch itself. > >> In which case I'd suggest that this would be clearer if phrased as "Use >> MASK_INTR() to avoid opencoding the literal 8." > I've appended this to the sentence there was, i.e "..., using MASK_INTR() > ...". To be honest, given the simplicity of the code change, I didn't > think it would be necessary to also say this verbally.
Honestly, you saying "two distinct places" for a while made me think you'd forgotten a hunk. It took longer than I care to admin to realise that the change was in fact correct as-is. ~Andrew
