[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090217124739.GA25029@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:47:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] ftrace: add traceon traceoff commands to
enable/disable the buffers
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > > + if (*count != -1)
> > > + (*count)--;
> >
> > minor nit: it's a tiny bit more compact as:
> >
> > > + if (*count != -1)
> > > + --*count;
>
> Doesn't that move the pointer? Cases like these, I prefer the parenthesis,
> because I get confused about C ordering.
>
> >
> > and this:
> >
> > > return register_tracer(&function_trace);
> > > }
> > >
> > > device_initcall(init_function_trace);
> > > +
> >
> > there should be no newline between device_initcall() and the
> > preceding function. (we can think of it as a late attribute of
> > the function, attached to the function. We do the same for
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL's too, etc.)
>
> OK,
>
> Do you want me to rebase, or just send out new "clean up" patches?
I already pulled (these are small details, not showstoppers),
please do a delta cleanup of those files.
( there's a few other instances of the same kind of problems -
please look at the whole file and try to figure out how to
make them look nicer. )
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