On 22 February 2013 08:03, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 07:47:44 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 22 February 2013 05:15, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
Why did you change all of the lines of this macro instead of changing just the one line you needed to change?
I didn't like the indentation used within the macro. So did it.
In general, things like that are for separate cleanup patches. If you mix functional changes with cleanups, poeple get confused and it's difficult to see what's needed and what's "optional".
I know it's tempting to fix stuff like that along with doing functional changes and I do that sometimes. Not very often, though, and with care.
Even i give similar comments sometimes but forget these while writing my patches :)
Anyway, fixup:
commit b1bbb99467d56140cf3a8a2b70e61b456aa46e48 Author: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Date: Fri Feb 22 07:59:20 2013 +0530
fixup! cpufreq: Get rid of "struct global_attr" --- drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c index e795134..49846b9 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c @@ -273,12 +273,12 @@ static void intel_pstate_debug_expose_params(void) /************************** debugfs end ************************/
/************************** sysfs begin ************************/ -#define show_one(file_name, object) \ -static ssize_t show_##file_name \ -(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf) \ -{ \ - return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", limits.object); \ -} +#define show_one(file_name, object) \ + static ssize_t show_##file_name \ + (struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf) \ + { \ + return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", limits.object); \ + }