On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 12:46 +0900, Choi Gi-yong wrote:
[]
> diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
Please run your suggested patches through checkpatch.
> @@ -715,7 +715,7 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t
> align, bool reserved)
>
> if (unlikely(!size || size > PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE || align > PAGE_SIZE)) {
> WARN(true, "illegal size (%zu) or align (%zu) for "
> - "percpu allocation\n", size, align);
> + "percpu allocation\n", size, align);
It'd be better to coalesce the format fragments
[]
> @@ -968,8 +968,8 @@ bool is_kernel_percpu_address(unsigned long addr)
> void *start = per_cpu_ptr(base, cpu);
>
> if ((void *)addr >= start && (void *)addr < start + static_size)
> - return true;
> - }
> + return true;
> + }
Not an improvement.
Why do you think it's better?
> @@ -1929,8 +1929,7 @@ void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
> */
> void __init percpu_init_late(void)
> {
> - struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] =
> - { pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL };
> + struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = { pcpu_first_chunk,
> pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL };
This exceeds 80 columns.
This would be better as:
struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = {
pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL
};
And perhaps this should be static const
> struct pcpu_chunk *chunk;
> unsigned long flags;
> int i;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
