On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:35:25 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote: > 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;
Yes, it's better to make them consistent, but perhaps the other way around? :-) Rafael -- 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/
