Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: trampoline.c cleanup

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
>
>   
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86: trampoline.c cleanup
> >
> > Impact: cleanup
> >
> >  - fix style problems
> >     
>
> Err. This patch is a style problem itself.
>  
>   
> > Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c |    3 ++-
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c b/arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c
> > index 808031a..e3b1f2e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c
> > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ void __init reserve_trampoline_memory(void)
> >  	 * trampoline before removing it. (see the GDT stuff)
> >  	 */
> >  	reserve_early(PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE + PAGE_SIZE, "EX TRAMPOLINE");
> > -#endif
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_X86_32 */
> >     
>
> There is no need for this useless comment. The #ifdef is 5 lines
> above. Such comments are only helpful in large nested sections.
>   

Not wanting to prolong this sort of boring thread, but I think there's 
definitely wiggle room here.  I tend to put closing comments on #endifs 
even if they're quite close to their #if(def) because the syntax is so 
awful, with no inherent indication of nesting.  And once you have to 
deal with a merge collision, or even just gradual drifting apart of the 
#if/endif, the closing comment becomes very helpful.

Sure, the closing comment adds some noise too, but the fix is to reduce 
the number of #ifdefs.

But in this case, I agree with tglx - the closing comment is pointless, 
because its unlikely that we're going to get #ifdef nesting or any more 
code between the #ifdef/endif pair.

   J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/