From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756492AbcB0Lzw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 06:55:52 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:34780 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756185AbcB0Lzu (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 27 Feb 2016 06:55:50 -0500
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:55:46 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] x86/setup: get ramdisk parameters only once
Message-ID: <20160227115546.GC16200@gmail.com>
References: <1456471905-28534-1-git-send-email-kuleshovmail@gmail.com>
 <20160226083741.GA12729@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160226083741.GA12729@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> wrote:

> >  void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> >  {
> > +	struct ramdisk ramdisk = {
> > +		.start_addr = get_ramdisk_image(),
> > +		.size  = PAGE_ALIGN(get_ramdisk_size()),
> > +		.reserve_ramdisk = true
> > +	};
> 
> More readable:
> 
>         struct ramdisk ramdisk = {
>                 .start_addr	 = get_ramdisk_image(),
>                 .size		 = PAGE_ALIGN(get_ramdisk_size()),
>                 .reserve_ramdisk = true,
>         };

So I find it highly annoying that this review feedback was done by Boris, but not 
implemented in v8 :-(

I'd much have preferred fewer iterations and more careful implementation, which 
would have resulted in much less time wasted on the reviewer side...

Anyway, to stop this trainwreck I've fixed this (and a few other small details) 
and applied the patch, but I'd also like to point out that from now on I'll stop 
accepting trivial patches from serial trivial patches contributors that are not 
part of some larger, more substantial work...

Thanks,

	Ingo