On Friday, April 05, 2013 04:00:04 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 31 March 2013 09:16, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 31 March 2013 07:16, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sunday, March 31, 2013 07:03:04 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >>> On 31 March 2013 03:31, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > Sorry, I won't apply this. It changes too much stuff at a time and I'm not > >>> > really sure if the change being made is necessary. > >>> > >>> Hmm.. I thought it is important as it puts the real meaning of "index" in the > >>> code. > >> > >> And what does that change, really? What about documenting the meaning of > >> "index" instead? > > > > Probably not the logic but perception. People don't necessarily go through > > Documentation but code for writing new stuff. And so code should reflect the > > real meaning. > > > > In case we write something like following in documentation: > > "Index: This is driver specific data for each frequency. Core doesn't use it." > > > > Then "Index" looks even more wrong. Its not the right name for any such > > variable. And so it should be fixed. > > Forgot reply to all earlier :( > > You have any more comments on this patch? I really thought this change > would be good. I agree it touches lot of stuff but for clean/clear code. OK Please resend it after v3.10-rc1 and I'll take it for v3.11. Surely, it can wait for that long. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
