Re: [git pull] "big box" x86 changes, bootmem/sparsemem

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> +	nid = phys_to_nid(phys);
> +	next_nid = phys_to_nid(phys + len - 1);
> +	if (nid == next_nid)
>  	reserve_bootmem_node(NODE_DATA(nid), phys, len, BOOTMEM_DEFAULT);
> -#else
> -	reserve_bootmem(phys, len, BOOTMEM_DEFAULT);
> +	else
>  #endif
> +	reserve_bootmem(phys, len, BOOTMEM_DEFAULT);
> +

Noticed this when just trying to read the code to see if it looks sensible 
(without looking at any real details).

Code like this is *not* acceptable.

We do proper indentations. Improperly indented code is buggy. It doesn't 
matter if the compiler might generate the same code with or without 
indentation, it's still totally unacceptable.

Having preprocessor conditionals that mix things up is not an excuse, and 
it might be an argument for not doing the conditional that way (ie maybe 
just make sure that when NUMA is not on, nid/next_nid will always be 
different, and in a way that the compiler can perhaps see statically that 
they are different - so that you can have the conditional there even with 
NUMA off, but the compiler will just fold it away?).

		Linus