* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > your patch is also a bit unclean:
>
> Ok patch with hungarized variables appended.
My comments have nothing to do with "hungarized variables". You used
clearly unclean and ambigious coding constructs like:
+static unsigned long __meminit
phys_pmd_update(pud_t *pud, unsigned long address, unsigned long end)
{
+ unsigned long r;
pmd_t *pmd = pmd_offset(pud, 0);
spin_lock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
- phys_pmd_init(pmd, address, end);
+ r = phys_pmd_init(pmd, address, end);
spin_unlock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
__flush_tlb_all();
+ return r;
}
the "r" name is totally unintuitive and the reader of the code is given
absolutely no idea what happens here.
The cleanliness rules about descriptive variable names are obvious,
necessary and well respected throughout the kernel, by all other kernel
contributors i know. For years you were allowed to merge such patches.
You should really (re-)learn and accept the rules that all other kernel
contributors have been following for years.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
