Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Trivial code cleanup

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Tue Jun 10 2014 - 16:26:19 EST


On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:14:53 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 11:17 ÎÎ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:26:44 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> >> On 06/10/2014 08:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 08:12:48 AM Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> >>>> On 06/09/2014 02:01 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >>>>> Remove unnecessary blank lines.
> >>>>> Remove unnecessary parentheses.
> >>>>> Remove unnecessary braces.
> >>>>> Put the code in one line where possible.
> >>>>> Add blank lines after variable declarations.
> >>>>> Alignment to open parenthesis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't have an issue with this patch in general but I would rather
> >>>> the cleanup be done when there is a functional change in the given
> >>>> hunk of code otherwise you are setting up a fence for stable/backporters
> >>>> of functional changes in the future.
> >>>
> >>> I actually prefer separate cleanups so as to avoid doing multiple things
> >>> in one patch.
> >>>
> >>> Rafael
> >>>
> >> I don't have strong feelings either way I was just trying to be kind
> >> to the maintainers of distro kernels.
> >
> > And mixing fixes with cleanups in one patch doesn't do any good to them.
> >
> > Trust me, I used to work for a distro. :-)
> >
>
> So, should I proceed and split the patch or drop it? :)

I'm not sure why you'd want to split it?

That said you're changing things that are intentional. For example,
the

if (acpi_disabled
|| ...)

is. And the result of (a * 100) / b may generally be different from
a * 100 / b for integers (if the division is carried out first).

Rafael

--
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/