From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754929AbZCOQc7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:32:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752408AbZCOQct (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:32:49 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:42347 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751982AbZCOQct (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:32:49 -0400 Message-ID: <49BD2DAE.50204@goop.org> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:32:46 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner CC: Jaswinder Singh Rajput , Ingo Molnar , x86 maintainers , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: trampoline.c cleanup References: <1237045494.4546.22.camel@ht.satnam> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > > >> Subject: [PATCH] x86: trampoline.c cleanup >> >> Impact: cleanup >> >> - fix style problems >> > > Err. This patch is a style problem itself. > > >> Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput >> --- >> arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c | 3 ++- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c b/arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c >> index 808031a..e3b1f2e 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/trampoline.c >> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ void __init reserve_trampoline_memory(void) >> * trampoline before removing it. (see the GDT stuff) >> */ >> reserve_early(PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE + PAGE_SIZE, "EX TRAMPOLINE"); >> -#endif >> +#endif /* CONFIG_X86_32 */ >> > > There is no need for this useless comment. The #ifdef is 5 lines > above. Such comments are only helpful in large nested sections. > Not wanting to prolong this sort of boring thread, but I think there's definitely wiggle room here. I tend to put closing comments on #endifs even if they're quite close to their #if(def) because the syntax is so awful, with no inherent indication of nesting. And once you have to deal with a merge collision, or even just gradual drifting apart of the #if/endif, the closing comment becomes very helpful. Sure, the closing comment adds some noise too, but the fix is to reduce the number of #ifdefs. But in this case, I agree with tglx - the closing comment is pointless, because its unlikely that we're going to get #ifdef nesting or any more code between the #ifdef/endif pair. J