[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110510203905.GD21903@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:39:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, UV: Support for SGI UV2 hub chip
* Jack Steiner <steiner@....com> wrote:
> + /*
> + * Our retries may be blocked by all destination
> + * swack resources being consumed, and a timeout
> + * pending. In that case hardware returns the
> + * ERROR that looks like a destination timeout.
> + */
> + if (cycles_2_us(ttime - bcp->send_message) <
> + timeout_us) {
> + bcp->conseccompletes = 0;
> + return FLUSH_RETRY_PLUGGED;
> + }
This code is sick. Symptom: too long lines. Illness: it's too complex.
checkpatch warned you but you applied the wrong cure: you only addressed the
symptom and broke the lines in an ugly way.
You need to pick another cure. One of the many options:
- eliminate many repetitive strings
- reduce indentation by the introduction of helper inlines
- sensible shortening of variable/field/definition names
... applies to this particular case and will solve the problem.
Note that there's other, similar incidents in this patch, please address all of
them.
Thanks,
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