Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sun, 9 Mar 2014 17:00:04 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix Coding style | From | 최(Choi)기용(Gi-yong) <> |
| |
>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?
I thought it would be better indent when return operation is fit in there. but it wouldn't sorry for my mistake.
>> @@ -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
I couldn't fix 717 line exceed problem. What can i do?
Sorry for my e-mail was rejected by vger.kernel.org server.
--
최 기용 Choi Gi-yong
2014-03-09 16:55 GMT+09:00 최(Choi)기용(Gi-yong) <yong@gnoy.org>: > 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? > > I thought it would be better indent when return operation is fit in there. > but it wouldn't sorry for my mistake. > >>> @@ -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 > > I couldn't fix 717 line exceed problem. > What can i do? > > > > -- > > 최 기용 > Choi Gi-yong
--
최 기용 Choi Gi-yong From fa8e74ea69195941841e20d606d480a8ad13f15b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Choi Gi-yong <yong@gnoy.org> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 16:51:28 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] mm: Fixed coding style and added static const keywords
Signed-off-by: Choi Gi-yong <yong@gnoy.org> --- mm/percpu.c | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c index dca284f..ff6cce2 100644 --- a/mm/percpu.c +++ b/mm/percpu.c @@ -714,8 +714,7 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved) void __percpu *ptr; 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); + WARN(true, "illegal size (%zu) or align (%zu) for percpu allocation\n", size, align); return NULL; } @@ -968,7 +967,7 @@ 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; } #endif /* on UP, can't distinguish from other static vars, always false */ @@ -1483,7 +1482,7 @@ static struct pcpu_alloc_info * __init pcpu_build_alloc_info( /* group cpus according to their proximity */ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { group = 0; - next_group: +next_group: for_each_possible_cpu(tcpu) { if (cpu == tcpu) break; @@ -1929,7 +1928,9 @@ 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 }; + static const struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = { + pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL + }; struct pcpu_chunk *chunk; unsigned long flags; int i; -- 1.8.3.2
| |