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]

Message-ID: <5053297.QO4RhmD3mT@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2014 02:24:25 +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 12:35:25 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 11/06/2014 12:38 πμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> OK, thanks for the clarification! I will do it in separate patches.
> 
> >>
> >>> 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).
> >
> 
> I think it is, according to C precedence table.
> But, anyway my motivation to the specific cleanup was the different style
> in the same block code:
> 
>         limits.min_perf_pct = (policy->min * 100) / policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> 	...
>         limits.max_policy_pct = policy->max * 100 / policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;

Yes, it's better to make them consistent, but perhaps the other way around? :-)

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/