Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86: coding style fixes to arch/x86/kernel/traps_64.c

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Gustavo F. Padovan <gustavo@las.ic.unicamp.br> wrote:

>  void printk_address(unsigned long address, int reliable)
>  {
> -	printk(" [<%016lx>] %s%pS\n", address, reliable ? "": "? ", (void *) address);
> +	printk(" [<%016lx>] %s%pS\n", address, reliable ?
> +			"" : "? ", (void *) address);

careful with line 80 warnings. This one is better broken up the 
following way:

	printk(" [<%016lx>] %s%pS\n",
	       address, reliable ? "": "? ", (void *) address);

so that logically coherent pieces of code stay together. (the arguments 
to the printk() function call in this case)

>  #if DEBUG_STKSZ > EXCEPTION_STKSZ
> -		[N_EXCEPTION_STACKS ... N_EXCEPTION_STACKS + DEBUG_STKSZ / EXCEPTION_STKSZ - 2] = "#DB[?]"
> +		[N_EXCEPTION_STACKS ... N_EXCEPTION_STACKS + DEBUG_STKSZ /
> +			EXCEPTION_STKSZ - 2] = "#DB[?]"

this too is done better in another way:

	[N_EXCEPTION_STACKS ... 
	 N_EXCEPTION_STACKS + DEBUG_STKSZ / EXCEPTION_STKSZ - 2] = "#DB[?]"

> -	// debugging aid: "show_stack(NULL, NULL);" prints the
> -	// back trace for this cpu.
> +	/* debugging aid: "show_stack(NULL, NULL);" prints the
> +	  back trace for this cpu. */

please use the standard multi-line comment format:

	/*
	 * Multi-line ...........
	 * .............. comment.
	 */

i've applied your patches already to x86/cleanups, so please send a 
delta patch against that branch to fix these few items up. You can pick 
it up via:

    http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README

and do:

    git-checkout tip/x86/cleanups

to check out that exact tree. (You might also want to work against 
tip/master, which has the same changes.)

	Ingo