RE: + acpi-mwait-c-state-fixes.patch added to -mm tree

["Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alexey Dobriyan [mailto:adobriyan@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 3:52 PM
>To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>Cc: Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>Subject: Re: + acpi-mwait-c-state-fixes.patch added to -mm tree
>
>On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 05:52:20PM -0700, akpm@osdl.org wrote:
>> The patch titled
>>
>>      acpi: mwait/C-state support
>>
>> has been added to the -mm tree.
>
>> --- a/arch/i386/kernel/acpi/cstate.c~acpi-mwait-c-state-fixes
>> +++ a/arch/i386/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
>
>> +/* The code below handles cstate entry with monitor-mwait 
>pair on Intel*/
>> +
>> +struct cstate_entry_s {
>
>If suffix "_s" stands for "struct", it should be removed. 
>You've already
>typed "struct".

Agreed. The dangling _s is a redundant carry over from an earlier
version of the patch. It was there as I had used same name cstate_entry
for a variable and I wanted to make sure differentiate the structure and
variable and not to inadvarently misuse them. It can be safely removed
now.

>
>> +	struct {
>> +		unsigned int eax;
>> +		unsigned int ecx;
>> +	} states[ACPI_PROCESSOR_MAX_POWER];
>> +};
>
>> +static inline void acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter(
>> +		struct acpi_processor_cx *cstate)
>> +{
>> +	return;
>> +}
>
>Just
>	{
>	}
>

Agreed again. Infact, just '{}' will do as well.. As both the issues are
coding style/cosmetic kind I will hold onto sending a updates until the
patch goes mainline. Will send changes through trivial list at that
time.

Thanks for reviewing.
Venki
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/