On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday, January 04, 2016 11:01:05 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Well, I guess you can argue both ways.
>
> Surely, the same result can be achieved with fewer lines of code if that's
> what you mean, so what about the following change on top of the $subject patch?
>
> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI / PCI: Simplify acpi_penalize_isa_irq()
>
> acpi_penalize_isa_irq() can be written in fewer lines of code,
> so do that. No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 14 +++-----------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -877,17 +877,9 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_updat
> */
> void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
> {
> - int penalty;
> -
> - if (irq < 0)
> - return;
> -
> - if (active)
> - penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> - else
> - penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> -
> - acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, penalty);
> + if (irq >= 0)
> + acpi_irq_add_penalty(irq, active ?
> + PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
Works for me as well!
> }
>
> bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>
--
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
