Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Thu, 31 May 2018 21:15:43 +0300 | Subject | Re: [RFC 1/2] printk: Enable platform to provide a early boot clock |
| |
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote: > On 05/31/2018 12:18 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> wrote:
>>> +static u64 printk_clock(void) >>> +{ >>> + /* If platform provides early boot printk clock, then use it */ >>> + if (unlikely(system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING && boot_printk_clock_fn)) >>> + return boot_printk_clock_fn(); >>> + else >>> + return local_clock(); >> >> 'else' is redundant. > > So it is. Is this a style comment? > This shouldn't matter to a smart compiler, should it?
In this particular case it doesn't matter, in more complex cases this will increase an indentation level which becomes a hardly readable code.
>>> +}
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |