From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753667AbcADNUV (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:20:21 -0500 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:46855 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751603AbcADNUT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 08:20:19 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Sinan Kaya , Christopher Covington , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Timur Tabi , jcm@redhat.com, helgaas@kernel.org, Len Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 1/2] ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count restriction Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:50:57 +0100 Message-ID: <2131424.aXhRMSo6AO@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.1.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1449677909-12432-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <6338540.F7x0ET9vtV@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, January 04, 2016 11:01:05 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 09:55:35 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > >> > On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> >> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable. > >> >> > >> >>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could > >> >>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch. > >> >> Is it a question? > >> > > >> > It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could > >> > have fixed before submitting a patch. > >> > > >> > I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not. > >> > >> Hmm… checkpatch.pl is just a small helper to fix style issues. Here is > >> just a common sense rule, or kind of Occam's razor: no need to have > >> more variables then needed if it doesn't improve something really > >> significantly. > > > > That said, compilers optimize things anyway, so using an extra local variable > > shouldn't matter for the resulting machine code. > > I'm not totally against that, but is the additional variable helpful here? Well, I guess you can argue both ways. Surely, the same result can be achieved with fewer lines of code if that's what you mean, so what about the following change on top of the $subject patch? --- From: Rafael J. Wysocki Subject: [PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Simplify acpi_penalize_isa_irq() acpi_penalize_isa_irq() can be written in fewer lines of code, so do that. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 14 +++----------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c @@ -877,17 +877,9 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_updat */ void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active) { - int penalty; - - if (irq < 0) - return; - - if (active) - penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED; - else - penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING; - - acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty); + if (irq >= 0) + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, active ? + PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING); } bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)