Re: [PATCH] [6/8] Account overlapped mappings in end_pfn_map

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > your patch is also a bit unclean:
> 
> Ok patch with hungarized variables appended.

My comments have nothing to do with "hungarized variables". You used 
clearly unclean and ambigious coding constructs like:

+static unsigned long __meminit
 phys_pmd_update(pud_t *pud, unsigned long address, unsigned long end)
 {
+       unsigned long r;
        pmd_t *pmd = pmd_offset(pud, 0);
        spin_lock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
-       phys_pmd_init(pmd, address, end);
+       r = phys_pmd_init(pmd, address, end);
        spin_unlock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
        __flush_tlb_all();
+       return r;
 }

the "r" name is totally unintuitive and the reader of the code is given 
absolutely no idea what happens here.

The cleanliness rules about descriptive variable names are obvious, 
necessary and well respected throughout the kernel, by all other kernel 
contributors i know. For years you were allowed to merge such patches. 
You should really (re-)learn and accept the rules that all other kernel 
contributors have been following for years.

	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/