linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction

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: <CAHp75VfKeJodVtTLUS=dzzOgjydsRSEiLyLRbLQn5SW=CyVFnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jan 2016 11:01:05 +0200
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>,
	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>, jcm@...hat.com,
	helgaas@...nel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 09:55:35 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> > On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable.
>> >>
>> >>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could
>> >>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch.
>> >> Is it a question?
>> >
>> > It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could
>> > have fixed before submitting a patch.
>> >
>> > I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not.
>>
>> Hmm… checkpatch.pl is just a small helper to fix style issues. Here is
>> just a common sense rule, or kind of Occam's razor: no need to have
>> more variables then needed if it doesn't improve something really
>> significantly.
>
> That said, compilers optimize things anyway, so using an extra local variable
> shouldn't matter for the resulting machine code.

I'm not totally against that, but is the additional variable helpful here?


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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/