[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707171110540.27353@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, stable@...nel.org,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > + if ((print_timestamp >= touch_timestamp &&
> > + print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1)) ||
> > + did_panic || !per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu)) {
> > return;
> > + }
> >
> > /* do not print during early bootup: */
> > if (unlikely(system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING)) {
>
> patch contains unneeded braces { }.
When there are issues with indentation, those braces are actually not
unneeded any more, except for the compiler.
Just _look_ at the code. The indentation is not obvious, because the
if-conditional itself is multiple lines, and indented (arguably wrongly so
too, but that's another issue).
So it's no longer a trivial one-liner statement, it's a "multi-statement"
spread out over multiple lines, and I think the braces are actually a good
idea for things like that.
I also encourage people do do braces when you have nested indentation, ie
if (something)
if (somethingelse)
return;
is actively *wrong*, while
if (something) {
if (somethingelse)
return;
}
is right, even though the braces are "unnecessary". Again, it's about the
visual representation, not about whether the compiler needs them or not.
Linus
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists