[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201104292307.35070.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:07:34 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, lethal@...ux-sh.org,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH 7/9] PM / Runtime: Generic clock manipulation rountines for runtime PM (v3)
On Friday, April 29, 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 02:58:34AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2011, Colin Cross wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > > > +void pm_runtime_clk_remove(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct pm_runtime_clk_data *prd = __to_prd(dev);
> > > > + struct pm_clock_entry *ce;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!prd)
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&prd->lock);
> > > > +
> > > > + list_for_each_entry(ce, &prd->clock_list, node)
> > > Braces
> >
> > No, this is correct as is.
>
> The code is correct, but Colin's comment is valid. Braces do make it
> easier for a reader to properly interpret the scope of large multiline
> blocks, even if it does resolve to a single statement.
OK, I'll add the braces.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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