[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1101292229270.19392@swampdragon.chaosbits.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:32:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
To: Michael Rodriguez <dkingston02@...il.com>
cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/cpu.c: Fix many errors related to style.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Michael Rodriguez wrote:
> This patch changes the printk() calls to have the KERN_INFO/KERN_ERROR stuff,
> and fixes other coding style errors. Not _all_ of them are gone, though.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Rodriguez <dkingston02@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/cpu.c | 13 +++++++------
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
...
> @@ -201,11 +200,11 @@ static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
>
> /* Ensure this CPU doesn't handle any more interrupts. */
> err = __cpu_disable();
> +
> if (err < 0)
> return err;
Why? We set 'err', then we test 'err' - why do we need a blank line
between those two? It's not like you are sepperating two logically
different operations from eachother here...
...
> @@ -227,7 +226,9 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> cpu_hotplug_begin();
> +
> err = __cpu_notify(CPU_DOWN_PREPARE | mod, hcpu, -1, &nr_calls);
> +
> if (err) {
> nr_calls--;
> __cpu_notify(CPU_DOWN_FAILED | mod, hcpu, nr_calls, NULL);
Why would we want these extra newlines? What's the point? The opereations
fit nicely together, I don't see the point in adding these extra
newlines..
--
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.
--
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