On 07/21/15 at 11:33am, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:55:28PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > The original assignment is a little redundent. > > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <[email protected]> > > Heh, I'm not sure this is actually better. Anyways, applied to > percpu/for-4.3. In general tho, I don't really think this level of > micro cleanup patches are worthwhile. If something around it changes, > sure, take the chance and clean it up but as standalone patches these > aren't that readily justifiable.
Understood. They are very tiny cleanups, not inprovement. Just when trying to fix a kdump corrupted header bug where cpu information is stored in percpu variable I tried to understand the whole percpu implementation and found these. Didn't put them together because that change is kdump only in kernel/kexec.c and that patch is testing by customers on big server. Understanding percpu code is always in my TODO list, now it's done. I am fine if patch like patch 3/3 makes code messy and should not be applied. Thanks for your reviewing and suggestion. Thanks Baoquan -- 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/
