[PATCH v9 01/21] ACPI / table: Use pr_debug() instead of pr_info() for MADT table scanning

[Joe Perches]

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 at linaro.org> 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.