linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: Use DO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 May 2009 19:47:26 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	x86@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c: Use
	DO_ONCE & spelling fix

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 04:34:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
 > On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 19:26 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 04:00:23PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
 > >  > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
 > >  > index 208ecf6..f569cff 100644
 > >  > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
 > >  > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
 > >  > @@ -693,8 +693,8 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 > >  >  	if (perf->control_register.space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE &&
 > >  >  	    policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency > 20 * 1000) {
 > >  >  		policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = 20 * 1000;
 > >  > -			printk_once(KERN_INFO "Capping off P-state tranision"
 > >  > -				    " latency at 20 uS\n");
 > >  > +		DO_ONCE(printk(KERN_INFO
 > >  > +			       "P-state transition latency capped at 20 uS\n"));
 > >  
 > > ewww. This looks pretty ugly to me. Anyone else?
 > 
 > What look ugly?
 > 
 > The macro use or the newline between KERN_INFO and "P-"
 > or the reformatting of the quoted string?

I just think it's a less readable variant of the same thing.
The shouty macro, the extra level of brackets, the whole thing 
just seems to be ugly to me with no redeeming feature.

What does doing this change really bring us?

	Dave

--
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/