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

[Stratos Karafotis]

On 11/06/2014 12:38 ÏÎ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:02:09 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> On 10/06/2014 11:43 ÎÎ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Forgive me, but I'm totally confused. I asked because you mentioned that
>> you prefer separate cleanups.
> 
> That was in a reply to Dirk who suggested doing cleanups along with
> fixes (or at least I understood what he said this way).
> 
> I tried to explain why I didn't think that this was a good idea.
> 
>> So, my question was if you want me to separate this patch into more (one
>> per change) or entirely drop it (because it would cause problems to backporters
>> or maintainers).
> 
> Cleanups are generally OK, but it's better to do one kind of a cleanup
> per patch.  Like whitespace fixes in one patch, cleanup of expressions in
> another.
> 

OK, thanks for the clarification! I will do it in separate patches.

>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> I thought that (a * 100) / b is always equivalent to a * 100 / b.
> 
> I'm not actually sure if that's guaranteed by C standards.  It surely
> wasn't some time ago (when there was no formal C standard).
>

I think it is, according to C precedence table.
But, anyway my motivation to the specific cleanup was the different style
in the same block code:

        limits.min_perf_pct = (policy->min * 100) / policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
	...
        limits.max_policy_pct = policy->max * 100 / policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;

Thanks again!
Stratos
--
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/