From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi: Adjustments for four function implementations Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:41:04 +0100 Message-ID: <9ea2c1c7-a07d-19c3-a2dc-0c69352d9558@users.sourceforge.net> References: <81459d11-693a-eb51-9173-9c189677f422@users.sourceforge.net> <20171223014033.jx7fzu7uzjfbzyca@khazad-dum.debian.net> <80ae8328-5851-01b0-cb31-474f7baf1686@users.sourceforge.net> <20180103001034.GC24794@fury> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180103001034.GC24794@fury> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Darren Hart , ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Andy Shevchenko , Andy Shevchenko , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org List-Id: platform-driver-x86.vger.kernel.org > I understand it can be frustrating to encounter different policies > across kernel maintainers. The change acceptance is varying for special transformation patterns. > You'll even run in to this with maintainers of the same subsystem > from time to time. Interesting, isn't it? > I'm supportive of cleaning up old code in general, Nice. > and we routinely apply such patches as these developed with cocci. Good to know … > 1. This is init code )so any space savings is short lived) Would you dare to achieve another small improvement there? > So it isn't that we place a low value on coding style guidelines, > but rather we place higher value on not perturbing code I can follow this view in principle. > we can't fully test without a demonstrable functional reasons to do so. How do you think about to get a bit nicer run time characteristics? Regards, Markus