Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: fix UP build

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 11:08:12AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

 > (not new to your diff - it's pre-existing crap):
 > 
 > 	>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 > 	>       struct cpufreq_policy *managed_policy;
 > 	> +     struct sys_device *cpu_sys_dev;
 > 	>  #endif
 > 
 > and instead those variables should be declared inside the blocks where 
 > they are used, not at the top.
 > 
 > The rule should always be: make the scope of a variable as small as 
 > possible. Don't declare it at the top and try to "save" a declaration when 
 > it can be used inside multiple blocks as multiple different variables.
 > 
 > Also, that whole function could damn well be split into smaller pieces, 
 > which would make it much more readable than that horrible 250+ line piece 
 > of crap monster-function with #ifdef's inside the code.

Yes, cpufreq_add_dev is a monster. Its complexity keeps biting us in new ways.

 > Please, somebody?
 
It's something to look at for .32, agreed.

	Dave

--
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/