[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0807161647470.2835@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] PCI pull request for 2.6.27
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> Miklos Vajna (1):
> x86/PCI: janitor work in irq.c
Please don't take patches like this.
If it's janitor work, the end result should be better. But it's not. This
patch is full of stuff like
- for(addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000); addr += 16) {
+ for (addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000);
+ addr += 16) {
rt = pirq_check_routing_table(addr);
Which just brings negative value. The code is _harder_ to look at, not
easier.
The 80-character limit is less important than making code look obvious and
indentation being readable. Splitting the for(;;) loop just made the
indentation look like total crap.
I'm fixing it up (since it also caused trivial conflicts), but I'd ask
people to just ignore that sh*t-for-brains that is the long-line warning
when trying to fix it may silence a warning, but results in worse code!
Linus
--
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