Could use schedule_delayed_work() and zap the timer altogether?


--

[ message continues ]

From 9e49c38637f335d5c91a0f1c4deea7ce2c20aa34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:09:10 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] corruption check: fix various checkpatch warnings

Cleanups as suggested by Randy / checkpatch.pl

Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/check.c |    8 ++++----
 include/linux/kernel.h  |    5 -----
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/check.c b/arch/x86/kernel/check.c
index b22733f..c59bfe6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/check.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/check.c
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ void __init setup_bios_corruption_check(void)
 
 	corruption_check_size = round_up(corruption_check_size, PAGE_SIZE);
 
-	while(addr < corruption_check_size && num_scan_areas < MAX_SCAN_AREAS) {
+	while (addr < corruption_check_size && num_scan_areas < MAX_SCAN_AREAS) {
 		u64 size;
 		addr = find_e820_area_size(addr, &size, PAGE_SIZE);
 
@@ -119,11 +119,11 @@ void check_for_bios_corruption(void)
 	if (!memory_corruption_check)
 		return;
 
-	for(i = 0; i < num_scan_areas; i++) {
+	for (i = 0; i < num_scan_areas; i++) {
 		unsigned long *addr = __va(scan_areas[i].addr);
 		unsigned long size = scan_areas[i].size;
 
-		for(; size; addr++, size -= sizeof(unsigned long)) {
+		for (; size; addr++, size -= sizeof(unsigned long)) {
 			if (!*addr)
 				continue;
 			printk(KERN_ERR "Corrupted low memory at %p (%lx phys) = %08lx\n",
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static void periodic_check_for_corruption(unsigned long data)
 
 
 
-int start_periodic_check_for_corruption(void)
+static int start_periodic_check_for_corruption(void)
 {
 	if (!memory_corruption_check || corruption_check_period == 0)
 		return 0;
diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
index 01085d2..b39c7ef 100644
--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
@@ -260,15 +260,10 @@ extern int root_mountflags;
  * able to scatter it around anywhere in the ...
[ message continues ]

--

[ message continues ]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:53:06 -0700

I got flamed already for changing code while it's just being moved ....

I'll look at your cleanup suggestions as another separate patch
please ;(

--

[ message continues ]

You mean what Ingo said?  I don't see any flames in what he said.

whatever.

---
~Randy
--

[ message continues ]

yes, that's natural. Anything that isnt super-important to backmerge 
should go into a separate patch.

	Ingo
--

[ message continues ]