Re: [PATCH v9 01/21] ACPI / table: Use pr_debug() instead of pr_info() for MADT table scanning
From: Hanjun Guo
Date: Mon Mar 09 2015 - 22:36:15 EST
On 2015å03æ07æ 04:31, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 20:17 +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:39:41 +0800 Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch just use pr_debug() instead of pr_info() for ioapic/iosapic,
local apic/x2apic/sapic structures when scanning the MADT table to remove
those verbose information, but leave other structures unchanged.
[]
One nitpick below, but don't respin over this, and don't do a fixup.
[]
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
[]
@@ -61,9 +63,9 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header)
{
struct acpi_madt_local_apic *p =
(struct acpi_madt_local_apic *)header;
- pr_info("LAPIC (acpi_id[0x%02x] lapic_id[0x%02x] %s)\n",
- p->processor_id, p->id,
- (p->lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) ? "enabled" : "disabled");
+ pr_debug("LAPIC (acpi_id[0x%02x] lapic_id[0x%02x] %s)\n",
+ p->processor_id, p->id,
+ (p->lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) ? "enabled" : "disabled");
The whitespace changes makes each 1 line change into 3 line changes. In
these situations, I would chose to leave the whitespace alone to keep
the diffstat as small as possible. It makes it less likely to conflict
with other patches and easier to find context.
I think it's mostly better to use a consistent indentation style
regardless of the number in whitespace changes surrounding the change.
I think both would be fine. Since this patch only touches acpi core
code and ACPI maintainer Rafael already acked it, I will keep it as
it is.
Thanks
Hanjun
--
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/