On 07/21/15 at 11:33am, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:55:28PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > The original assignment is a little redundent. > > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Heh, I'm not sure this is actually better. Anyways, applied to > percpu/for-4.3. In general tho, I don't really think this level of > micro cleanup patches are worthwhile. If something around it changes, > sure, take the chance and clean it up but as standalone patches these > aren't that readily justifiable. Understood. They are very tiny cleanups, not inprovement. Just when trying to fix a kdump corrupted header bug where cpu information is stored in percpu variable I tried to understand the whole percpu implementation and found these. Didn't put them together because that change is kdump only in kernel/kexec.c and that patch is testing by customers on big server. Understanding percpu code is always in my TODO list, now it's done. I am fine if patch like patch 3/3 makes code messy and should not be applied. Thanks for your reviewing and suggestion. Thanks Baoquan -- 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>