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@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>