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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:59:59 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, patches@...aro.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] trivial: PM / Hibernate: clean up checkpatch in hibernate.c On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 02:37:33 PM Sebastian Capella wrote: > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 13:36:29) > > Well, this isn't a trivial patch. > > I'll remove the trivial, thanks! > > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 13:36:29) > > On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 12:43:50 PM Sebastian Capella wrote: > > > + while (1) > > > + ; > > Please remove this change from the patch. I don't care about checkpatch > > complaining here. > > > + while (1) > > > + ; > > Same here. > > Will do, thanks! > > > > @@ -765,7 +762,7 @@ static int software_resume(void) > > > if (isdigit(resume_file[0]) && resume_wait) { > > > int partno; > > > while (!get_gendisk(swsusp_resume_device, &partno)) > > > - msleep(10); > > > + msleep(20); > > > > That's the reason why it is not trivial. > > > > First, the change being made doesn't belong in this patch. > > Thanks I'll separate it if it remains. > > > Second, what's the problem with the original value? > > The warning from checkpatch implies that it's misleading to > msleep < 20ms since msleep is using msec_to_jiffies + 1 for > the duration. In any case, this is polling for devices discovery to > complete. It is used when resumewait is specified on the command > line telling hibernate to wait for the resume device to appear. What checkpatch is saying is about *new* code, not the existing one. You need to have a *reason* to change the way the existing code works and the above explanation doesn't sound like a good one to me in this particular case. > > > -static ssize_t image_size_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > > +static ssize_t image_size_show(struct kobject *kobj, > > > + struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > Why can't you leave the code as is here? > > > -static ssize_t image_size_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > > +static ssize_t image_size_store(struct kobject *kobj, > > > + struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > And here? > > Purely long line cleanup. (>80 colunms) Please don't do any >80 columns cleanups in any patches you want me to apply. Seriously. This is irritating and unuseful. And if you don't want checkpatch to complain about that, please send a patch to modify checkpatch accordingly. Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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