Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Sep 2016 08:33:59 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: squash lines for simple wrapper functions |
| |
* Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> Remove unneeded variables and assignments. I am also removing > unnecessary parentheses while I am here. > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_flat_64.c | 16 +++------------- > arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c | 5 +---- > arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c | 5 +---- > arch/x86/mm/pat_rbtree.c | 4 +--- > arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c | 7 ++----- > arch/x86/platform/uv/tlb_uv.c | 6 +----- > 6 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_flat_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_flat_64.c > index 5b2ae10..c7228f9 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_flat_64.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_flat_64.c > @@ -116,27 +116,17 @@ static void flat_send_IPI_all(int vector) > > static unsigned int flat_get_apic_id(unsigned long x) > { > - unsigned int id; > - > - id = (((x)>>24) & 0xFFu); > - > - return id; > + return ((x) >> 24) & 0xFFu;
So while we are removing unnecessary things, exactly why does the 'x' need parentheses?
> static unsigned long set_apic_id(unsigned int id) > { > - unsigned long x; > - > - x = ((id & 0xFFu)<<24); > - return x; > + return (id & 0xFFu) << 24;
'id' is already unsigned, why does the 'u' have to be stressed in the literal? (Ditto for other places as well)
> static unsigned long numachip1_set_apic_id(unsigned int id) > { > - unsigned long x; > - > - x = ((id & 0xffU) << 24); > - return x; > + return (id & 0xffU) << 24; > }
Why is the spelling of the literal inconsistent here with the other patterns?
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c > @@ -533,11 +533,8 @@ static unsigned int x2apic_get_apic_id(unsigned long x) > > static unsigned long set_apic_id(unsigned int id) > { > - unsigned long x; > - > /* maskout x2apic_extra_bits ? */ > - x = id; > - return x; > + return id; > }
This was clearly left there to document a quirk and as a placeholder for future changes.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |