From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ee0-f50.google.com (mail-ee0-f50.google.com [74.125.83.50]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B386B0031 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 18:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ee0-f50.google.com with SMTP id d17so4592875eek.37 for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:45:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from v094114.home.net.pl (v094114.home.net.pl. [79.96.170.134]) by mx.google.com with SMTP id t5si45641953eeo.22.2014.02.04.15.45.29 for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:45:30 -0800 (PST) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] trivial: PM / Hibernate: clean up checkpatch in hibernate.c Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:59:59 +0100 Message-ID: <4317708.1544moHa91@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140204223733.30015.23993@capellas-linux> References: <1391546631-7715-1-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org> <9487103.2jnJmCRm9n@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140204223733.30015.23993@capellas-linux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sebastian Capella Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, Pavel Machek , Len Brown On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 02:37:33 PM Sebastian Capella wrote: > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 13:36:29) > > Well, this isn't a trivial patch. > > I'll remove the trivial, thanks! > > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 13:36:29) > > On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 12:43:50 PM Sebastian Capella wrote: > > > + while (1) > > > + ; > > Please remove this change from the patch. I don't care about checkpatch > > complaining here. > > > + while (1) > > > + ; > > Same here. > > Will do, thanks! > > > > @@ -765,7 +762,7 @@ static int software_resume(void) > > > if (isdigit(resume_file[0]) && resume_wait) { > > > int partno; > > > while (!get_gendisk(swsusp_resume_device, &partno)) > > > - msleep(10); > > > + msleep(20); > > > > That's the reason why it is not trivial. > > > > First, the change being made doesn't belong in this patch. > > Thanks I'll separate it if it remains. > > > Second, what's the problem with the original value? > > The warning from checkpatch implies that it's misleading to > msleep < 20ms since msleep is using msec_to_jiffies + 1 for > the duration. In any case, this is polling for devices discovery to > complete. It is used when resumewait is specified on the command > line telling hibernate to wait for the resume device to appear. What checkpatch is saying is about *new* code, not the existing one. You need to have a *reason* to change the way the existing code works and the above explanation doesn't sound like a good one to me in this particular case. > > > -static ssize_t image_size_show(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > > +static ssize_t image_size_show(struct kobject *kobj, > > > + struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > Why can't you leave the code as is here? > > > -static ssize_t image_size_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > > +static ssize_t image_size_store(struct kobject *kobj, > > > + struct kobj_attribute *attr, > > And here? > > Purely long line cleanup. (>80 colunms) Please don't do any >80 columns cleanups in any patches you want me to apply. Seriously. This is irritating and unuseful. And if you don't want checkpatch to complain about that, please send a patch to modify checkpatch accordingly. Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org