Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: cleanup 20090317

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 09:38 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 23:33 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > -static struct clock_event_device pit_clockevent = {
> > > > > +static struct clock_event_device pit_dev = {
> > > > 
> > > >   Why do we need to change the name of the variable ? Just for fun or
> > > >   is pit_dev more self explaining than pit_clockevent ?
> > > 
> > > pit already means it is a clock event, but with this change:
> > > 
> > > 1. we save 8 characters per declaration
> > > 2. It solves various 80 characters problem
> > 
> > There is not a single 80 character problem in that file.
> 
> Here are 80 character problems:
> 
> 1.        pit_clockevent.mult = div_sc(CLOCK_TICK_RATE, NSEC_PER_SEC,
>                                      pit_clockevent.shift);
> 2.        pit_clockevent.max_delta_ns =
>                 clockevent_delta2ns(0x7FFF, &pit_clockevent);
> 3.        pit_clockevent.min_delta_ns =
>                 clockevent_delta2ns(0xF, &pit_clockevent);
> 
> 4.        clocksource_pit.mult = clocksource_hz2mult(CLOCK_TICK_RATE,
>                                                    clocksource_pit.shift);

We could rename "pit_clockevent" to "pit_ce" perhaps - if Thomas 
agrees. pit_dev sounds weird.

pure (non-code-changing) cleanups should be kept separate from 
code changing cleanups.


	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/