[PATCH] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c: Use ";" not "," to terminate statements

[PATCH] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c: Use ";" not "," to terminate statements

[Joe Perches]

These are the only "," terminated statements that
precede a pr_<level> in the kernel tree.

These must be ";" terminated if the pr_<level>
macros becomes a bit more space efficient using
a "do { foo } while (0)" form.

Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c |    6 +++---
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
index 06130b5..c5f59d0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
@@ -632,9 +632,9 @@ static void __init mtrr_print_out_one_result(int i)
 	unsigned long gran_base, chunk_base, lose_base;
 	char gran_factor, chunk_factor, lose_factor;
 
-	gran_base = to_size_factor(result[i].gran_sizek, &gran_factor),
-	chunk_base = to_size_factor(result[i].chunk_sizek, &chunk_factor),
-	lose_base = to_size_factor(result[i].lose_cover_sizek, &lose_factor),
+	gran_base = to_size_factor(result[i].gran_sizek, &gran_factor);
+	chunk_base = to_size_factor(result[i].chunk_sizek, &chunk_factor);
+	lose_base = to_size_factor(result[i].lose_cover_sizek, &lose_factor);
 
 	pr_info("%sgran_size: %ld%c \tchunk_size: %ld%c \t",
 		result[i].bad ? "*BAD*" : " ",

Re: [PATCH] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c: Use ";" not "," to terminate statements

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Joe Perches wrote:

Sorry, but that's one of the most convoluted changelogs I ever saw. 

> These are the only "," terminated statements that
> precede a pr_<level> in the kernel tree.

Errm, why is this related to pr_<level> in any way ?
 
> These must be ";" terminated if the pr_<level>
> macros becomes a bit more space efficient using
> a "do { foo } while (0)" form.

It has absolutely _NOTHING_ to do with any implementation detail of
the function/macro which comes after those statements.

Terminating a statement with a comma is simply wrong by itself and it
needs to be fixed w/o further ado.

Thanks,

	tglx

Re: [PATCH] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c: Use ";" not "," to terminate statements

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 00:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Joe Perches wrote:
> that's one of the most convoluted changelogs I ever saw. 
> > These are the only "," terminated statements that
> > precede a pr_<level> in the kernel tree.
> Terminating a statement with a comma is simply wrong by itself and it
> needs to be fixed w/o further ado.

Great.  So remove the changelog and just use the subject.

I sent a simpler changelog patch last month.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/28/349

Ingo rejected it.

He said there were other style problems in the file that
needed cleaning.  I asked what those style problems were.
checkpatch and his "code-quality" script don't show
significant issues.  No reply from Ingo.

Re: [PATCH] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c: Use ";" not "," to terminate statements

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 02:14 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > Needed if pr_<level> becomes a bit more space efficient.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c |    6 +++---
> >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
> > index 06130b5..c5f59d0 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
> > @@ -632,9 +632,9 @@ static void __init mtrr_print_out_one_result(int i)
> >  	unsigned long gran_base, chunk_base, lose_base;
> >  	char gran_factor, chunk_factor, lose_factor;
> >  
> > -	gran_base = to_size_factor(result[i].gran_sizek, &gran_factor),
> > -	chunk_base = to_size_factor(result[i].chunk_sizek, &chunk_factor),
> > -	lose_base = to_size_factor(result[i].lose_cover_sizek, &lose_factor),
> > +	gran_base = to_size_factor(result[i].gran_sizek, &gran_factor);
> > +	chunk_base = to_size_factor(result[i].chunk_sizek, &chunk_factor);
> > +	lose_base = to_size_factor(result[i].lose_cover_sizek, &lose_factor);
> 
> That file and this subsystem needs a lot more cleanups than just this. Would 
> you be willing to do them all, so that we can get over with the churn in a 
> single well-defined patch (or patches)?
> 
> I dont see much point in piecemail single-comma patches - i'd rather wait for 
> someone else who'd fix this and other details in one go.

This is the only "," preceeding a pr_<level> printk
in the kernel tree.

The comma prevents the pr_<level> macro to take the
"do { foo } while (0)" form.

I don't see significant issues in the code style that
need cleanups in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr.

What do you think needs cleaning?

Re: [PATCH] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c: Use ";" not "," to terminate statements

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 02:14 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> That file and this subsystem needs a lot more cleanups than just this. Would 
> you be willing to do them all, so that we can get over with the churn in a 
> single well-defined patch (or patches)?
> 
> I dont see much point in piecemail single-comma patches - i'd rather wait for 
> someone else who'd fix this and other details in one go.

I don't see significant style issues in mtrr

$ git ls-files arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/ | \
	xargs ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f 

What do you think needs improving?git ls-files arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/
| \
	xargs ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f 

Re: [PATCH] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c: Use ";" not "," to terminate statements

[Ingo Molnar]

* Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:

> Needed if pr_<level> becomes a bit more space efficient.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c |    6 +++---
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
> index 06130b5..c5f59d0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
> @@ -632,9 +632,9 @@ static void __init mtrr_print_out_one_result(int i)
>  	unsigned long gran_base, chunk_base, lose_base;
>  	char gran_factor, chunk_factor, lose_factor;
>  
> -	gran_base = to_size_factor(result[i].gran_sizek, &gran_factor),
> -	chunk_base = to_size_factor(result[i].chunk_sizek, &chunk_factor),
> -	lose_base = to_size_factor(result[i].lose_cover_sizek, &lose_factor),
> +	gran_base = to_size_factor(result[i].gran_sizek, &gran_factor);
> +	chunk_base = to_size_factor(result[i].chunk_sizek, &chunk_factor);
> +	lose_base = to_size_factor(result[i].lose_cover_sizek, &lose_factor);

That file and this subsystem needs a lot more cleanups than just this. Would 
you be willing to do them all, so that we can get over with the churn in a 
single well-defined patch (or patches)?

I dont see much point in piecemail single-comma patches - i'd rather wait for 
someone else who'd fix this and other details in one go.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[PATCH] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c: Use ";" not "," to terminate statements

[Joe Perches]

Needed if pr_<level> becomes a bit more space efficient.

Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c |    6 +++---
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
index 06130b5..c5f59d0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/cleanup.c
@@ -632,9 +632,9 @@ static void __init mtrr_print_out_one_result(int i)
 	unsigned long gran_base, chunk_base, lose_base;
 	char gran_factor, chunk_factor, lose_factor;
 
-	gran_base = to_size_factor(result[i].gran_sizek, &gran_factor),
-	chunk_base = to_size_factor(result[i].chunk_sizek, &chunk_factor),
-	lose_base = to_size_factor(result[i].lose_cover_sizek, &lose_factor),
+	gran_base = to_size_factor(result[i].gran_sizek, &gran_factor);
+	chunk_base = to_size_factor(result[i].chunk_sizek, &chunk_factor);
+	lose_base = to_size_factor(result[i].lose_cover_sizek, &lose_factor);
 
 	pr_info("%sgran_size: %ld%c \tchunk_size: %ld%c \t",
 		result[i].bad ? "*BAD*" : " ",