linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: intel

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]

Date:	Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:38:51 +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 Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:02:09 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 11:43 μμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Forgive me, but I'm totally confused. I asked because you mentioned that
> you prefer separate cleanups.

That was in a reply to Dirk who suggested doing cleanups along with
fixes (or at least I understood what he said this way).

I tried to explain why I didn't think that this was a good idea.

> So, my question was if you want me to separate this patch into more (one
> per change) or entirely drop it (because it would cause problems to backporters
> or maintainers).

Cleanups are generally OK, but it's better to do one kind of a cleanup
per patch.  Like whitespace fixes in one patch, cleanup of expressions in
another.

> 
> > 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).
> 
> I thought that (a * 100) / b is always equivalent to a * 100 / b.

I'm not actually sure if that's guaranteed by C standards.  It surely
wasn't some time ago (when there was no formal C standard).

Either way, in my opinion it's better to put the parens into the expression
in this particular case to clearly state the intention.

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/