lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-29 22:33    [W:0.082 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site