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]
Message-ID: <1875587.zmLYOIAyby@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:43:35 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>
Cc:	Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@...il.com>,
	dirk.j.brandewie@...el.com, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Trivial code cleanup

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:14:53 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 11:17 μμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:26:44 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> >> On 06/10/2014 08:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 08:12:48 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> >>>> On 06/09/2014 02:01 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >>>>> Remove unnecessary blank lines.
> >>>>> Remove unnecessary parentheses.
> >>>>> Remove unnecessary braces.
> >>>>> Put the code in one line where possible.
> >>>>> Add blank lines after variable declarations.
> >>>>> Alignment to open parenthesis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't have an issue with this patch in general but I would rather
> >>>> the cleanup be done when there is a functional change in the given
> >>>> hunk of code otherwise you are setting up a fence for stable/backporters
> >>>> of functional changes in the future.
> >>>
> >>> I actually prefer separate cleanups so as to avoid doing multiple things
> >>> in one patch.
> >>>
> >>> Rafael
> >>>
> >> I don't have strong feelings either way I was just trying to be kind
> >> to the maintainers of distro kernels.
> > 
> > And mixing fixes with cleanups in one patch doesn't do any good to them.
> > 
> > Trust me, I used to work for a distro. :-)
> > 
> 
> So, should I proceed and split the patch or drop it? :)

I'm not sure why you'd want to split it?

That said you're changing things that are intentional.  For example,
the

	if (acpi_disabled
	    || ...)

is.  And the result of (a * 100) / b may generally be different from
a * 100 / b for integers (if the division is carried out first).

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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ