[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080516134858.GC28910@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:48:58 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@...galware.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: janitor work in bugs.c
* Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@...galware.org> wrote:
> -/* trap_init() enabled FXSR and company _before_ testing for FP problems here. */
> +/*
> + * trap_init() enabled FXSR and company _before_ testing for FP problems
> + * here.
> + */
> /* Test for the divl bug.. */
> __asm__("fninit\n\t"
> "fldl %1\n\t"
the two comments should be merged, somehow like this:
> + /*
> + * trap_init() enabled FXSR and company _before_ testing for FP
> + * problems here.
> + *
> + * Test for the divl bug:
> + */
> __asm__("fninit\n\t"
> check_popad();
> - init_utsname()->machine[1] = '0' + (boot_cpu_data.x86 > 6 ? 6 : boot_cpu_data.x86);
> + init_utsname()->machine[1] = '0' + (boot_cpu_data.x86 > 6 ? 6 :
> + boot_cpu_data.x86);
hm, that looks a bit ugly. It's nicer to have something like:
> + init_utsname()->machine[1] = '0' + (boot_cpu_data.x86 > 6 ? 6 :
> + boot_cpu_data.x86);
i.e. have a continuation of the right side of the expression, and have
it close to where it was broken from.
or just do:
> + init_utsname()->machine[1] =
> + '0' + (boot_cpu_data.x86 > 6 ? 6 : boot_cpu_data.x86);
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists