On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 09:55:35 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On 12/30/2015 8:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >> Yep, I meant not to use an additional variable. >> >> >> >>> > BTW, I suggest you spend some time around checkpatch for contributions. I could >> >>> > have caught most of the issues you are generally concerned before submitting a patch. >> >> Is it a question? >> > >> > It is a request not a question. I hate wasting your time and my time with things that I could >> > have fixed before submitting a patch. >> > >> > I ran the checkpatch and it said I'm good to go. But, obviously I'm not. >> >> Hmm… checkpatch.pl is just a small helper to fix style issues. Here is >> just a common sense rule, or kind of Occam's razor: no need to have >> more variables then needed if it doesn't improve something really >> significantly. > > That said, compilers optimize things anyway, so using an extra local variable > shouldn't matter for the resulting machine code. I'm not totally against that, but is the additional variable helpful here? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
