On 22 February 2013 08:03, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:47:44 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 22 February 2013 05:15, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Why did you change all of the lines of this macro instead of changing just the >> > one line you needed to change? >> >> I didn't like the indentation used within the macro. So did it. > > In general, things like that are for separate cleanup patches. If you mix > functional changes with cleanups, poeple get confused and it's difficult to see > what's needed and what's "optional". > > I know it's tempting to fix stuff like that along with doing functional > changes and I do that sometimes. Not very often, though, and with care. Even i give similar comments sometimes but forget these while writing my patches :) Anyway, fixup: commit b1bbb99467d56140cf3a8a2b70e61b456aa46e48 Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri Feb 22 07:59:20 2013 +0530 fixup! cpufreq: Get rid of "struct global_attr" --- drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c index e795134..49846b9 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c @@ -273,12 +273,12 @@ static void intel_pstate_debug_expose_params(void) /************************** debugfs end ************************/ /************************** sysfs begin ************************/ -#define show_one(file_name, object) \ -static ssize_t show_##file_name \ -(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf) \ -{ \ - return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", limits.object); \ -} +#define show_one(file_name, object) \ + static ssize_t show_##file_name \ + (struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf) \ + { \ + return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", limits.object); \ + } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html