quoted

quoted

I'm not sure we need extra comments or documentation; I just want
to check that I've understood the patch correctly.

So, would you prefer this split to the original patch ?

I think splitting out this patch (1/2) makes sense.


For the second part (2/2) of the split, I still find that hard to
review.  The commit message suggests trivially obvious refactoring
only, but I think there are three things going on:

  1) moving functions around (with the intention of merging them)
  2) merging functions together
  3) other miscellaneous bits of refactoring, and cleanups that become
     "obvious" after steps (1) and (2).

The refactoring is likely straightfoward, but the resulting diff is
not (at least, I struggle to read it).

Could you split the second part along the lines if (1)..(3) above?
I think that would make for much easier review.  (Sorry to be a pain!)

Also, the second patch leaves at least one function that does nothing
except call a second function that has no other caller.  It may do
no harm to remove and inline any such function.  (Falls under (3),
I guess.)

Here it goes...

Suzuki K Poulose (4):
  arm64: capabilities: Prepare for grouping features and errata work
    arounds
  arm64: capabilities: Split the processing of errata work arounds
  arm64: capabilities: Allow features based on local CPU scope
  arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata workarounds

 arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

-- 
2.14.3