[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfcyyFeBnEdDbARk2VdxRT55qWdBJu_XWK5gGRHm5LTGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 21:15:43 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
alek.du@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] printk: Enable platform to provide a early boot clock
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> On 05/31/2018 12:18 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
>>> +static u64 printk_clock(void)
>>> +{
>>> + /* If platform provides early boot printk clock, then use it */
>>> + if (unlikely(system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING && boot_printk_clock_fn))
>>> + return boot_printk_clock_fn();
>>> + else
>>> + return local_clock();
>>
>> 'else' is redundant.
>
> So it is. Is this a style comment?
> This shouldn't matter to a smart compiler, should it?
In this particular case it doesn't matter, in more complex cases this
will increase an indentation level which becomes a hardly readable
code.
>>> +}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists