On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:20 +0200
> Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > @@ -412,23 +404,20 @@ stack_trace_sysctl(struct ctl_table *tab
> > void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
> > loff_t *ppos)
> > {
> > - int ret;
> > + int ret, was_enabled;
>
> One small nit. Could this be:
>
> int was_enabled;
> int ret;
>
> I prefer only joining variables that are related on the same line.
> Makes it look cleaner IMO.
If you wish so. To me it's waste of screen space :)
> >
> > mutex_lock(&stack_sysctl_mutex);
> > + was_enabled = !!stack_tracer_enabled;
> >
>
> Bah, not sure why I didn't do it this way to begin with. I think I
> copied something else that couldn't do it this way for some reason and
> didn't put any brain power behind the copy. :-/ But that was back in
> 2008 so I blame it on being "young and stupid" ;-)
The young part is gone for sure :)
> Other then the above nit and removing the unneeded +1 in max_entries:
s/+1/-1/
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
