From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Trivial code cleanup Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:38:51 +0200 Message-ID: <1894836.tjrHdJ7Duz@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <5396208F.6070400@semaphore.gr> <1875587.zmLYOIAyby@vostro.rjw.lan> <53977251.2090804@semaphore.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53977251.2090804@semaphore.gr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stratos Karafotis Cc: Dirk Brandewie , dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com, Viresh Kumar , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , LKML List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:02:09 AM Stratos Karafotis wrote: > On 10/06/2014 11:43 =CE=BC=CE=BC, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:14:53 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote: > >> On 10/06/2014 11:17 =CE=BC=CE=BC, 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 r= ather > >>>>>> the cleanup be done when there is a functional change in the g= iven > >>>>>> hunk of code otherwise you are setting up a fence for stable/b= ackporters > >>>>>> of functional changes in the future. > >>>>> > >>>>> I actually prefer separate cleanups so as to avoid doing multip= le 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 t= o them. > >>> > >>> Trust me, I used to work for a distro. :-) > >>> > >> > >> So, should I proceed and split the patch or drop it? :) > >=20 > > I'm not sure why you'd want to split it? >=20 > Forgive me, but I'm totally confused. I asked because you mentioned t= hat > 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 b= ackporters > 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. >=20 > > That said you're changing things that are intentional. For example= , > > the > >=20 > > if (acpi_disabled > > || ...) > >=20 > > is. And the result of (a * 100) / b may generally be different fro= m > > a * 100 / b for integers (if the division is carried out first). >=20 > 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). Either way, in my opinion it's better to put the parens into the expres= sion in this particular case to clearly state the intention. Rafael