Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:19:15 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 01/19] tick: trivial cleanups | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 23 April 2014 02:53, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:24:57PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c >> index 6558b7a..9e9ddba 100644 >> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c >> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c >> @@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ static ktime_t tick_init_jiffy_update(void) >> return period; >> } >> >> - >> static void tick_sched_do_timer(ktime_t now) >> { >> int cpu = smp_processor_id(); >> @@ -248,8 +247,8 @@ void tick_nohz_full_kick_all(void) >> return; >> >> preempt_disable(); >> - smp_call_function_many(tick_nohz_full_mask, >> - nohz_full_kick_ipi, NULL, false); >> + smp_call_function_many(tick_nohz_full_mask, nohz_full_kick_ipi, NULL, >> + false); > > Breaking < 80 char lines is arguable although I'm not sure it still matters in 2014.
I agree. In case we don't care anymore, checkpatch.pl must be fixed..
> But I don't see much the point of the above change. I usually prefer when line contents > are a bit balanced. It may be a matter of taste I guess.
When I tried doing it, I though it might come in a single line, but then it didn't. The way I wrap things normally is I let 'vim' do it after 80 columns. And it tries to fit max in a single line.. So this happened.
I can drop it if you want.. :)
| |