On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 00:44:17 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:20 +0200
> > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -412,23 +404,20 @@ stack_trace_sysctl(struct ctl_table *tab
> > > void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
> > > loff_t *ppos)
> > > {
> > > - int ret;
> > > + int ret, was_enabled;
> >
> > One small nit. Could this be:
> >
> > int was_enabled;
> > int ret;
> >
> > I prefer only joining variables that are related on the same line.
> > Makes it look cleaner IMO.
>
> If you wish so. To me it's waste of screen space :)
At least you didn't say it helps the compiler ;-)
>
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&stack_sysctl_mutex);
> > > + was_enabled = !!stack_tracer_enabled;
> > >
> >
> > Bah, not sure why I didn't do it this way to begin with. I think I
> > copied something else that couldn't do it this way for some reason and
> > didn't put any brain power behind the copy. :-/ But that was back in
> > 2008 so I blame it on being "young and stupid" ;-)
>
> The young part is gone for sure :)
I purposely set you up for that response.
>
> > Other then the above nit and removing the unneeded +1 in max_entries:
>
> s/+1/-1/
That was an ode to G+
-- Steve
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
