Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] locking/qspinlock: Re-order code

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Flip the branch condition after atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL)
> such that we loose the indent. This also result in a more natural code
> flow IMO.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/qspinlock.c |   56 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

I think I actually prefer the current code flow, but that's probably just
because I'm used to it and I don't have a strong opinion about this, so:

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>

given that this looks correct to me.

Will