Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 05:33:25PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 22.01.2013 21:25, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
[...]
>> > + for (cpu_idx = 0; cpu_idx < max_cpus; cpu_idx++) {
>> > + unsigned int apic_id = x86_cpu_apic_id_from_index(cpu_idx);
>> > + assert(apic_id < apic_id_limit);
>> > for (j = 0; j < nb_numa_nodes; j++) {
>> > - if (test_bit(i, node_cpumask[j])) {
>> > - numa_fw_cfg[i + 1] = cpu_to_le64(j);
>> > + if (test_bit(cpu_idx, node_cpumask[j])) {
>> > + numa_fw_cfg[apic_id + 1] = cpu_to_le64(j);
>> > break;
>> > }
>> > }
>> > }
>>
>> Why can't we keep using i here? That would leave the "for (..." and
>> "test_bit" lines unchanged and let us spot the actual changes of i vs.
>> apic_id more easily.
>
> It would make the patch simpler, but at the cost of keeping variable
> names opaque for people reading the code in the future. I believe
> readable code is more important than making patches smaller.
Both are important, and you can have both at the same time: put the
rename in its own patch. Whether that's justified in this case is
debatable.
