On 11/06/2014 12:38 πμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:02:09 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote: >> On 10/06/2014 11:43 μμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:14:53 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote: >>>> On 10/06/2014 11:17 μμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:26:44 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote: >>>>>> On 06/10/2014 08:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 08:12:48 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote: >>>>>>>> On 06/09/2014 02:01 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote: >>>>>>>>> Remove unnecessary blank lines. >>>>>>>>> Remove unnecessary parentheses. >>>>>>>>> Remove unnecessary braces. >>>>>>>>> Put the code in one line where possible. >>>>>>>>> Add blank lines after variable declarations. >>>>>>>>> Alignment to open parenthesis. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't have an issue with this patch in general but I would rather >>>>>>>> the cleanup be done when there is a functional change in the given >>>>>>>> hunk of code otherwise you are setting up a fence for >>>>>>>> stable/backporters >>>>>>>> of functional changes in the future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I actually prefer separate cleanups so as to avoid doing multiple things >>>>>>> in one patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafael >>>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have strong feelings either way I was just trying to be kind >>>>>> to the maintainers of distro kernels. >>>>> >>>>> And mixing fixes with cleanups in one patch doesn't do any good to them. >>>>> >>>>> Trust me, I used to work for a distro. :-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, should I proceed and split the patch or drop it? :) >>> >>> I'm not sure why you'd want to split it? >> >> Forgive me, but I'm totally confused. I asked because you mentioned that >> you prefer separate cleanups. > > That was in a reply to Dirk who suggested doing cleanups along with > fixes (or at least I understood what he said this way). > > I tried to explain why I didn't think that this was a good idea. > >> So, my question was if you want me to separate this patch into more (one >> per change) or entirely drop it (because it would cause problems to >> backporters >> or maintainers). > > Cleanups are generally OK, but it's better to do one kind of a cleanup > per patch. Like whitespace fixes in one patch, cleanup of expressions in > another. >
OK, thanks for the clarification! I will do it in separate patches. >> >>> That said you're changing things that are intentional. For example, >>> the >>> >>> if (acpi_disabled >>> || ...) >>> >>> is. And the result of (a * 100) / b may generally be different from >>> a * 100 / b for integers (if the division is carried out first). >> >> I thought that (a * 100) / b is always equivalent to a * 100 / b. > > I'm not actually sure if that's guaranteed by C standards. It surely > wasn't some time ago (when there was no formal C standard). > I think it is, according to C precedence table. But, anyway my motivation to the specific cleanup was the different style in the same block code: limits.min_perf_pct = (policy->min * 100) / policy->cpuinfo.max_freq; ... limits.max_policy_pct = policy->max * 100 / policy->cpuinfo.max_freq; Thanks again! Stratos -- 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/