On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 12:46 +0900, Choi Gi-yong wrote: [] > diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
Please run your suggested patches through checkpatch. > @@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t > align, bool reserved) > > if (unlikely(!size || size > PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE || align > PAGE_SIZE)) { > WARN(true, "illegal size (%zu) or align (%zu) for " > - "percpu allocation\n", size, align); > + "percpu allocation\n", size, align); It'd be better to coalesce the format fragments [] > @@ -968,8 +968,8 @@ bool is_kernel_percpu_address(unsigned long addr) > void *start = per_cpu_ptr(base, cpu); > > if ((void *)addr >= start && (void *)addr < start + static_size) > - return true; > - } > + return true; > + } Not an improvement. Why do you think it's better? > @@ -1929,8 +1929,7 @@ void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void) > */ > void __init percpu_init_late(void) > { > - struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = > - { pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL }; > + struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = { pcpu_first_chunk, > pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL }; This exceeds 80 columns. This would be better as: struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = { pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL }; And perhaps this should be static const > struct pcpu_chunk *chunk; > unsigned long flags; > int i; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/