linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 02/11] sched/pelt: remove blank line

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: <CAKfTPtDVDhojjq-zg5X5iQ5-h=Ra1Kaxt7nJQR82pwN-pGXMhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:42:16 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
        viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/11] sched/pelt: remove blank line

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 at 16:33, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 02:09:45PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/pelt.c b/kernel/sched/pelt.c
> > index e6ecbb2..4174582 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/pelt.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/pelt.c
> > @@ -287,7 +287,6 @@ int __update_load_avg_se(u64 now, int cpu, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_e
> >
> >       if (___update_load_sum(now, cpu, &se->avg, !!se->on_rq, !!se->on_rq,
> >                               cfs_rq->curr == se)) {
> > -
> >               ___update_load_avg(&se->avg, se_weight(se), se_runnable(se));
> >               cfs_se_util_change(&se->avg);
> >               return 1;
> > @@ -302,7 +301,6 @@ int __update_load_avg_cfs_rq(u64 now, int cpu, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> >                               scale_load_down(cfs_rq->load.weight),
> >                               scale_load_down(cfs_rq->runnable_weight),
> >                               cfs_rq->curr != NULL)) {
> > -
> >               ___update_load_avg(&cfs_rq->avg, 1, 1);
> >               return 1;
> >       }
>
> So I put them there on purpose, I find it easier to read when a
> multi-line if statement and the body are separated. Makes it clearer
> where the if ends and the block begins.
>
> I mean, all whitespace in C is superfluous, and yet we keep adding it to
> these files :-)

I'm fine with keeping it as well as for newly added ones; Patrick
raised the point on a similar empty line  for the newly added
update_rt_rq_load_avg() function on previous revision and just wanted
to keep them all aligned