Re: [PATCH] kernel/cpu.c: Fix many errors related to style.

[Jesper Juhl]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Michael Rodriguez wrote:

> This patch changes the printk() calls to have the KERN_INFO/KERN_ERROR stuff,
> and fixes other coding style errors. Not _all_ of them are gone, though.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Rodriguez <dkingston02@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/cpu.c |   13 +++++++------
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
...
> @@ -201,11 +200,11 @@ static int __ref take_cpu_down(void *_param)
>  
>  	/* Ensure this CPU doesn't handle any more interrupts. */
>  	err = __cpu_disable();
> +
>  	if (err < 0)
>  		return err;
Why? We set 'err', then we test 'err' - why do we need a blank line 
between those two? It's not like you are sepperating two logically 
different operations from eachother here...

...
> @@ -227,7 +226,9 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	cpu_hotplug_begin();
> +
>  	err = __cpu_notify(CPU_DOWN_PREPARE | mod, hcpu, -1, &nr_calls);
> +
>  	if (err) {
>  		nr_calls--;
>  		__cpu_notify(CPU_DOWN_FAILED | mod, hcpu, nr_calls, NULL);

Why would we want these extra newlines? What's the point? The opereations 
fit nicely together, I don't see the point in adding these extra 
newlines..


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>            http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

--
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/