linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/v2] CodingStyle updates

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:01:10 +0100 (MET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
cc:	Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Scott Preece <sepreece@...il.com>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/v2] CodingStyle updates


On Dec 15 2006 15:56, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 December 2006 09:00:37 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:07:17 +0100 Pavel Machek wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Not in simple cases.
>> > > 
>> > > 3*i + 2*j should be writen like that. Not like
>> > > (3 * i) + (2 * j)
>> > 
>> > I would just write it as:
>> > 3 * i + 2 * j
>> 
>> So would I.  But I definitely wouldn't write
>>       for (i = 0; i < 10; i += 2)
>> because I prefer the grouping in
>> for (i=0; i<10; i+=2)
>> 
>
> Would you write:
>
>      i+=2;
>
> outside the loop? If not then it is better to keep style consistent
> and not use condensed form in loops either.

Don't you all even think about leaving the whitespace away in the wrong
place, otherwise the kernel is likely to become an entry for IOCCC.


	-`J'
--