On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 09:22:10PM +0100, Manuel Lauss wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:58:49AM -0800, David Daney wrote: > > Manuel Lauss wrote: > > [...] > >> Or how about this? > > [...] seq_printf(p, " %14s", irq_desc[i].chip->name); > >> - seq_printf(p, "-%-8s", irq_desc[i].name); > >> + if (irq_desc[i].name) > >> + seq_printf(p, "-%-8s", irq_desc[i].name); > >> seq_printf(p, " %s", action->name); > > > > I will let you and Ralf decide. However it would be nice if action->name > > lined up with a mixture of NULL and non-NULL irq_desc[i].name. It is not > > clear to me if this is the case with your patch. > > Good point, no it's not the case unfortunately; the gap between > the controller and irq names becomes unaesthetically wide. > > So please revert the patch. Done. Ralf
