Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix Coding style

[최(Choi)기용(Gi-yong)]

>Please run your suggested patches through checkpatch.


> @@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved)
>
>       if (unlikely(!size || size > PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE || align > PAGE_SIZE)) {
>               WARN(true, "illegal size (%zu) or align (%zu) for "
> -                  "percpu allocation\n", size, align);
> +                             "percpu allocation\n", size, align);

>It'd be better to coalesce the format fragments


> @@ -968,8 +968,8 @@ bool is_kernel_percpu_address(unsigned long addr)
>               void *start = per_cpu_ptr(base, cpu);
>
>               if ((void *)addr >= start && (void *)addr < start + static_size)
> -                     return true;
> -        }
> +             return true;
> +       }

>Not an improvement.
>Why do you think it's better?

I thought it would be better indent when return operation is fit in there.
but it wouldn't sorry for my mistake.

>> @@ -1929,8 +1929,7 @@ void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
>>   */
>>  void __init percpu_init_late(void)
>>  {
>> -     struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] =
>> -             { pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL };
> +     struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = { pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL };

>This exceeds 80 columns.

>This would be better as:

>      struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = {
>               pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL
>      };

>And perhaps this should be static const

I couldn't fix 717 line exceed problem.
What can i do?

Sorry for my e-mail was rejected by vger.kernel.org server.


-- 

최     기용
Choi Gi-yong

2014-03-09 16:55 GMT+09:00 최(Choi)기용(Gi-yong) <yong@xxxxxxxx>:
> Please run your suggested patches through checkpatch.
>
>
>> @@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t
>> align, bool reserved)
>>
>>       if (unlikely(!size || size > PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE || align >
>> PAGE_SIZE)) {
>>               WARN(true, "illegal size (%zu) or align (%zu) for "
>> -                  "percpu allocation\n", size, align);
>> +                             "percpu allocation\n", size, align);
>
>>It'd be better to coalesce the format fragments
>
>
>> @@ -968,8 +968,8 @@ bool is_kernel_percpu_address(unsigned long addr)
>>               void *start = per_cpu_ptr(base, cpu);
>>
>>               if ((void *)addr >= start && (void *)addr < start +
>> static_size)
>> -                     return true;
>> -        }
>> +             return true;
>> +       }
>
>>Not an improvement.
>>Why do you think it's better?
>
> I thought it would be better indent when return operation is fit in there.
> but it wouldn't sorry for my mistake.
>
>>> @@ -1929,8 +1929,7 @@ void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
>>>   */
>>>  void __init percpu_init_late(void)
>>>  {
>>> -     struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] =
>>> -             { pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL };
>> +     struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = { pcpu_first_chunk,
>> pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL };
>
>>This exceeds 80 columns.
>
>>This would be better as:
>
>>      struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = {
>>               pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL
>>      };
>
>>And perhaps this should be static const
>
> I couldn't fix 717 line exceed problem.
> What can i do?
>
>
>
> --
>
> 최     기용
> Choi Gi-yong



-- 

최     기용
Choi Gi-yong
From fa8e74ea69195941841e20d606d480a8ad13f15b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Choi Gi-yong <yong@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 16:51:28 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] mm: Fixed coding style and added static const keywords

Signed-off-by: Choi Gi-yong <yong@xxxxxxxx>
---
 mm/percpu.c | 11 ++++++-----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index dca284f..ff6cce2 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -714,8 +714,7 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved)
 	void __percpu *ptr;
 
 	if (unlikely(!size || size > PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE || align > PAGE_SIZE)) {
-		WARN(true, "illegal size (%zu) or align (%zu) for "
-				"percpu allocation\n", size, align);
+		WARN(true, "illegal size (%zu) or align (%zu) for percpu allocation\n", size, align);
 		return NULL;
 	}
 
@@ -968,7 +967,7 @@ bool is_kernel_percpu_address(unsigned long addr)
 		void *start = per_cpu_ptr(base, cpu);
 
 		if ((void *)addr >= start && (void *)addr < start + static_size)
-		return true;
+			return true;
        }
 #endif
 	/* on UP, can't distinguish from other static vars, always false */
@@ -1483,7 +1482,7 @@ static struct pcpu_alloc_info * __init pcpu_build_alloc_info(
 	/* group cpus according to their proximity */
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
 		group = 0;
-	next_group:
+next_group:
 		for_each_possible_cpu(tcpu) {
 			if (cpu == tcpu)
 				break;
@@ -1929,7 +1928,9 @@ void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
  */
 void __init percpu_init_late(void)
 {
-	struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = { pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL };
+	static const struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = {
+		pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL
+	};
 	struct pcpu_chunk *chunk;
 	unsigned long flags;
 	int i;
-- 
1.8.3.2