lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fixed some style warnings and errors
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 09:17:43PM +0600, Khan M Rashedun-Naby wrote:
> @@ -820,14 +821,22 @@ static void init_amd(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE);
>
> switch (c->x86) {
> - case 4: init_amd_k5(c); break;
> - case 5: init_amd_k6(c); break;
> - case 6: init_amd_k7(c); break;
> - case 0xf: init_amd_k8(c); break;
> - case 0x10: init_amd_gh(c); break;
> - case 0x12: init_amd_ln(c); break;
> - case 0x15: init_amd_bd(c); break;
> - case 0x17: init_amd_zn(c); break;
> + case 4:
> + init_amd_k5(c); break;
> + case 5:
> + init_amd_k6(c); break;
> + case 6:
> + init_amd_k7(c); break;
> + case 0xf:
> + init_amd_k8(c); break;
> + case 0x10:
> + init_amd_gh(c); break;
> + case 0x12:
> + init_amd_ln(c); break;
> + case 0x15:
> + init_amd_bd(c); break;
> + case 0x17:
> + init_amd_zn(c); break;

No, it was compact and more readable before.

In general, I'd very much advise *not* to do checkpatch-only patches.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-02 18:18    [W:0.047 / U:11.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site