* Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix Coding style
[not found] ` <CAH4bKb02r2Co08u8nSVOw2eFVCF-5r_bA33B8RGDwW1BLtjoKA@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2014-03-09 8:00 ` 최(Choi)기용(Gi-yong)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: 최(Choi)기용(Gi-yong) @ 2014-03-09 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches; +Cc: tj, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3509 bytes --]
>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?
I thought it would be better indent when return operation is fit in there.
but it wouldn't sorry for my mistake.
>> @@ -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
I couldn't fix 717 line exceed problem.
What can i do?
Sorry for my e-mail was rejected by vger.kernel.org server.
--
최 기용
Choi Gi-yong
2014-03-09 16:55 GMT+09:00 최(Choi)기용(Gi-yong) <yong@gnoy.org>:
> 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?
>
> I thought it would be better indent when return operation is fit in there.
> but it wouldn't sorry for my mistake.
>
>>> @@ -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
>
> I couldn't fix 717 line exceed problem.
> What can i do?
>
>
>
> --
>
> 최 기용
> Choi Gi-yong
--
최 기용
Choi Gi-yong
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-mm-Fixed-coding-style-and-added-static-const-keyword.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1794 bytes --]
From fa8e74ea69195941841e20d606d480a8ad13f15b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Choi Gi-yong <yong@gnoy.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 16:51:28 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] mm: Fixed coding style and added static const keywords
Signed-off-by: Choi Gi-yong <yong@gnoy.org>
---
mm/percpu.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index dca284f..ff6cce2 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -714,8 +714,7 @@ static void __percpu *pcpu_alloc(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved)
void __percpu *ptr;
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);
+ WARN(true, "illegal size (%zu) or align (%zu) for percpu allocation\n", size, align);
return NULL;
}
@@ -968,7 +967,7 @@ 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;
}
#endif
/* on UP, can't distinguish from other static vars, always false */
@@ -1483,7 +1482,7 @@ static struct pcpu_alloc_info * __init pcpu_build_alloc_info(
/* group cpus according to their proximity */
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
group = 0;
- next_group:
+next_group:
for_each_possible_cpu(tcpu) {
if (cpu == tcpu)
break;
@@ -1929,7 +1928,9 @@ 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 };
+ static const struct pcpu_chunk *target_chunks[] = {
+ pcpu_first_chunk, pcpu_reserved_chunk, NULL
+ };
struct pcpu_chunk *chunk;
unsigned long flags;
int i;
--
1.8.3.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread