On 23 April 2014 02:53, Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:24:57PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
>> index 6558b7a..9e9ddba 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
>> @@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ static ktime_t tick_init_jiffy_update(void)
>> return period;
>> }
>>
>> -
>> static void tick_sched_do_timer(ktime_t now)
>> {
>> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> @@ -248,8 +247,8 @@ void tick_nohz_full_kick_all(void)
>> return;
>>
>> preempt_disable();
>> - smp_call_function_many(tick_nohz_full_mask,
>> - nohz_full_kick_ipi, NULL, false);
>> + smp_call_function_many(tick_nohz_full_mask, nohz_full_kick_ipi, NULL,
>> + false);
>
> Breaking < 80 char lines is arguable although I'm not sure it still matters
> in 2014.
I agree. In case we don't care anymore, checkpatch.pl must be fixed..
> But I don't see much the point of the above change. I usually prefer when
> line contents
> are a bit balanced. It may be a matter of taste I guess.
When I tried doing it, I though it might come in a single line, but
then it didn't.
The way I wrap things normally is I let 'vim' do it after 80 columns. And it
tries to fit max in a single line.. So this happened.
I can drop it if you want.. :)
--
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/
