A quick cleanup with scripts/checkpatch.pl -f <file>.
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
index af15f44..8233a63 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
@@ -12,7 +12,6 @@
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <acpi/processor.h>
-#include <asm/acpi.h>
#include <asm/mwait.h>
#include <asm/special_insns.h>
@@ -89,7 +88,8 @@ static long acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe_cpu(void *_cx)
retval = 0;
/* If the HW does not support any sub-states in this C-state */
if (num_cstate_subtype == 0) {
- pr_warn(FW_BUG "ACPI MWAIT C-state 0x%x not supported by HW (0x%x)\n", cx->address, edx_part);
+ pr_warn(FW_BUG "ACPI MWAIT C-state 0x%x not supported by HW (0x%x)\n",
+ cx->address, edx_part);
retval = -1;
goto out;
}
@@ -104,8 +104,8 @@ static long acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe_cpu(void *_cx)
if (!mwait_supported[cstate_type]) {
mwait_supported[cstate_type] = 1;
printk(KERN_DEBUG
- "Monitor-Mwait will be used to enter C-%d "
- "state\n", cx->type);
+ "Monitor-Mwait will be used to enter C-%d state\n",
+ cx->type);
}
snprintf(cx->desc,
ACPI_CX_DESC_LEN, "ACPI FFH INTEL MWAIT 0x%x",
@@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter);
static int __init ffh_cstate_init(void)
{
struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data;
+
if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
return -1;
--
2.9.3
On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 15:28 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> A quick cleanup with scripts/checkpatch.pl -f <file>.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
What Pavel wrote was "Rest is good".??That's not an ack.
You don't get to add "Acked-by" or any signature
without a specific use of that signature by the
other party.
>From https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/12/610:
>> Anyway with that fixed,
>> Acked-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
> That's not an ack.
Oh, sorry, should I resubmit v4 with the Ack removed from the commit
message?
~Nick
On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 16:01 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> From https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/12/610:
>
> > > Anyway with that fixed,
> > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
> > That's not an ack.
>
> Oh, sorry, should I resubmit v4 with the Ack removed from the commit
> message?
No, that's an ack I didn't notice.
cheers, Joe
On Mon 2016-12-12 15:47:54, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 15:28 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > A quick cleanup with scripts/checkpatch.pl -f <file>.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
>
> What Pavel wrote was "Rest is good".??That's not an ack.
>
> You don't get to add "Acked-by" or any signature
> without a specific use of that signature by the
> other party.
Actually, it was ACK. Sorry if I was unclear.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html