Re: [Update][PATCH 7/9] PM / Runtime: Generic clock manipulationrountines for runtime PM (v3)

[Grant Likely]

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.

g.

> 
> > > +               if (!con_id && !ce->con_id) {
> > > +                       __pm_runtime_clk_remove(ce);
> > > +                       break;
> > > +               } else if (!con_id || !ce->con_id) {
> > > +                       continue;
> > > +               } else if (!strcmp(con_id, ce->con_id)) {
> > > +                       __pm_runtime_clk_remove(ce);
> > > +                       break;
> > > +               }
> > > +
> > > +       mutex_unlock(&prd->lock);
> > > +}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/