Re: [PATCH] x86, UV: Support for SGI UV2 hub chip

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jack Steiner <steiner@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> +				/*
> +				 * Our retries may be blocked by all destination
> +				 * swack resources being consumed, and a timeout
> +				 * pending.  In that case hardware returns the
> +				 * ERROR that looks like a destination timeout.
> +				 */
> +				if (cycles_2_us(ttime - bcp->send_message) <
> +								timeout_us) {
> +					bcp->conseccompletes = 0;
> +					return FLUSH_RETRY_PLUGGED;
> +				}

This code is sick. Symptom: too long lines. Illness: it's too complex.

checkpatch warned you but you applied the wrong cure: you only addressed the 
symptom and broke the lines in an ugly way.

You need to pick another cure. One of the many options:

  - eliminate many repetitive strings
  - reduce indentation by the introduction of helper inlines
  - sensible shortening of variable/field/definition names

... applies to this particular case and will solve the problem.

Note that there's other, similar incidents in this patch, please address all of 
them.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/