[PATCH 08/14] xfree86: delete useless "Primary device is not PCI" message

[Peter Hutterer]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:07:23PM +0300, Vignatti Tiago (Nokia-D/Helsinki) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 06:29:28PM +0200, ext Tomas Carnecky wrote:
> > On 6/1/10 4:59 PM, Tiago Vignatti wrote:
> > > It's not PCI? So what?!
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tiago Vignatti<tiago.vignatti at nokia.com>
> > > ---
> > >   hw/xfree86/common/xf86pciBus.c |    6 ------
> > >   1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86pciBus.c b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86pciBus.c
> > > index a751427..b64bae3 100644
> > > --- a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86pciBus.c
> > > +++ b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86pciBus.c
> > > @@ -1318,14 +1318,8 @@ xf86PciMatchDriver(char* matches[], int nmatches) {
> > >       }
> > >
> > >       pci_iterator_destroy(iter);
> > > -
> > > -    if (!info) {
> > > -	ErrorF("Primary device is not PCI\n");
> > > -    }
> > >   #ifdef __linux__
> > > -    else {
> > >   	matchDriverFromFiles(matches, info->vendor_id, info->device_id);
> > 
> > How much do Xorg developers care about indentation? This should be at 
> > the same level as pci_iterator_destroy() a couple lines above.
> 
> How much do Xorg reviewers care about the logic and the correct behaviour of
> the code without caring about tiny details like indentation? 

If one's not familiar with the code, maybe indentation is the only thing
they can point out in a code review. And don't forget, patch review is one
way to get familiar with the code base.

It's a valid comment here, indentation is already screwed up as it is, we
should aim for improving it, not discarding it as "tiny detail".

Cheers,
  Peter