From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stratos Karafotis Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Trivial code cleanup Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:14:53 +0300 Message-ID: <5397673D.8010200@semaphore.gr> References: <5396208F.6070400@semaphore.gr> <1447217.dTmMAkaUnF@vostro.rjw.lan> <53973FD4.7090904@intel.com> <5753346.hxK14sqO5y@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5753346.hxK14sqO5y@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dirk Brandewie Cc: dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com, Viresh Kumar , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , LKML List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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 rathe= r >>>> 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/backp= orters >>>> of functional changes in the future. >>> >>> I actually prefer separate cleanups so as to avoid doing multiple t= hings >>> 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. >=20 > And mixing fixes with cleanups in one patch doesn't do any good to th= em. >=20 > Trust me, I used to work for a distro. :-) >=20 So, should I proceed and split the patch or drop it? :) Stratos