On Friday, April 29, 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 02:58:34AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2011, Colin Cross wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > +void pm_runtime_clk_remove(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct pm_runtime_clk_data *prd = __to_prd(dev);
> > > > + struct pm_clock_entry *ce;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!prd)
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&prd->lock);
> > > > +
> > > > + list_for_each_entry(ce, &prd->clock_list, node)
> > > Braces
> >
> > No, this is correct as is.
>
> The code is correct, but Colin's comment is valid. Braces do make it
> easier for a reader to properly interpret the scope of large multiline
> blocks, even if it does resolve to a single statement.
OK, I'll add the braces.
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
