Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753968AbaFJVfb (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:35:31 -0400 Received: from sema.semaphore.gr ([78.46.194.137]:58383 "EHLO sema.semaphore.gr" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753830AbaFJVf3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:35:29 -0400 Message-ID: <53977A1D.9010202@semaphore.gr> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:35:25 +0300 From: Stratos Karafotis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Dirk Brandewie , dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com, Viresh Kumar , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Trivial code cleanup References: <5396208F.6070400@semaphore.gr> <1875587.zmLYOIAyby@vostro.rjw.lan> <53977251.2090804@semaphore.gr> <1894836.tjrHdJ7Duz@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <1894836.tjrHdJ7Duz@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/06/2014 12:38 πμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:02:09 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote: >> On 10/06/2014 11:43 μμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:14:53 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote: >>>> On 10/06/2014 11:17 μμ, 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/