Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:32:04 +0100 (CET) | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kernel/cpu.c: Fix many errors related to style. |
| |
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Michael Rodriguez wrote:
> This patch changes the printk() calls to have the KERN_INFO/KERN_ERROR stuff, > and fixes other coding style errors. Not _all_ of them are gone, though. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Rodriguez <dkingston02@gmail.com> > --- > kernel/cpu.c | 13 +++++++------ > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > ... > @@ -201,11 +200,11 @@ static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param) > > /* Ensure this CPU doesn't handle any more interrupts. */ > err = __cpu_disable(); > + > if (err < 0) > return err; Why? We set 'err', then we test 'err' - why do we need a blank line between those two? It's not like you are sepperating two logically different operations from eachother here...
... > @@ -227,7 +226,9 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen) > return -EINVAL; > > cpu_hotplug_begin(); > + > err = __cpu_notify(CPU_DOWN_PREPARE | mod, hcpu, -1, &nr_calls); > + > if (err) { > nr_calls--; > __cpu_notify(CPU_DOWN_FAILED | mod, hcpu, nr_calls, NULL);
Why would we want these extra newlines? What's the point? The opereations fit nicely together, I don't see the point in adding these extra newlines..
-- Jesper Juhl <jj@chaosbits.net> http://www.chaosbits.net/ Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please.
| |