On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 03:39:19PM -0800, [email protected] wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > Subject: mm-memcontrol-default-hierarchy-interface-for-memory-checkpatch-fixes > > Cc: Greg Thelen <[email protected]> > > WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf > #315: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:5340: > + seq_printf(m, "none\n"); > > WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf > #349: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:5374: > + seq_printf(m, "none\n"); > > WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf > #383: FILE: mm/memcontrol.c:5408: > + seq_printf(m, "none\n"); > > total: 0 errors, 3 warnings, 431 lines checked > > ./patches/mm-memcontrol-default-hierarchy-interface-for-memory.patch has > style problems, please review. > > If any of these errors are false positives, please report > them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS. > > Please run checkpatch prior to sending patches > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> > --- > > mm/memcontrol.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff -puN > mm/memcontrol.c~mm-memcontrol-default-hierarchy-interface-for-memory-checkpatch-fixes > mm/memcontrol.c > --- > a/mm/memcontrol.c~mm-memcontrol-default-hierarchy-interface-for-memory-checkpatch-fixes > +++ a/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -5337,7 +5337,7 @@ static int memory_low_show(struct seq_fi > unsigned long low = ACCESS_ONCE(memcg->low); > > if (low == 0) > - seq_printf(m, "none\n"); > + seq_puts(m, "none\n"); > else > seq_printf(m, "%llu\n", (u64)low * PAGE_SIZE);
Hm, is that really an improvement to the code? With seq_printf() the calls in both branches align visually much nicer, IMO. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
