linux-kernel - Re: coding style for long conditions (WAS: Re: [PATCH 25/90] ... blinky leds!!)

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:	Sat, 7 Apr 2007 00:04:23 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: coding style for long conditions (WAS: Re: [PATCH 25/90] ...
 blinky leds!!)

Hello David,

On Apr 6 2007 13:57, David Brownell wrote:
>> though I do not speak for 
>> them, seem to do it much the way I described, judging from the code they
>> wrote/write.
>
>Your eyes are broken then ...

Sorry? I could have simply told you to look into kernel/signal.c LINE
220 (that's in the recalc_sigpending_tsk() function), to see that
THERE IS code which uses /^\t+\x20/ to indent wrapped if continuation
lines:

fastcall void recalc_sigpending_tsk(struct task_struct *t)
{
	if (t->signal->group_stop_count > 0 ||
	    (freezing(t)) ||
	    PENDING(&t->pending, &t->blocked) ||
	    PENDING(&t->signal->shared_pending, &t->blocked))
		set_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
	else
		clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING);
}

And this is not the only function. But since I figured you would
anyway object despite what I say...

>or maybe you're focussing exclusively
>on code that violates the most basic coding guidelines like:

...I wrote that script that actually proves my point (minus script
bugs - errare est humanum) that \t+\x20 is PREDOMINANT in kernel
code. Whether that invalidates what CodingStyle says is another
debate (which at best Randy just decides and sends a patch for which
is then hopefully committed instantly).

>	if (...) {
>		THAT WAS ONE MORE TAB
>	}
>
>and
>
>	for (...) {
>		THAT WAS ALSO ONE MORE TAB
>	}
>
>Come on, stop wasting everyone's time with utter nonsense.

I was never debating these two things. I was, however, if you have
not noticed yet, about wrapped if lines:

	if (foo ||
	    continuation_with_2_or_more_spaces)
		code_with_1_tab;
and
	if (foo ||
			continuation_with_2_tabs)
		code_with_1_tab;

The former is what kernel code does "**TODAY**".
Thank you.
Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/