[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080104001250.6747701b@weinigel.se>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:12:50 +0100
From: Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>
To: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@...asas.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <andyw@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] teach checkpatch.pl about list_for_each
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:17:29 +0200
Benny Halevy <bhalevy@...asas.com> wrote:
> On Jan. 03, 2008, 14:30 +0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> > Agreed, CodingStyle is not about mindless consistency such as "for
> > (" is the right thing, so "list_for_each (" is consistent with it,
> > it is about codifying practice contributors got used to over the
> > years.
> >
>
> Why mindless?
> Coding style is also about giving the coding language logic a
> graphical representation. Following a convention that flow control
> keywords such as "if", "for", or "while" are distinguished from
> function calls by use of a space after the keyword really helps the
> code readability regardless of how people used to code it in the
> past... The for_each_* macros are clearly not function calls but
> rather translate to for () flow control constructs hence they should
> follow the same convention. FWIW, I think that changing the existing
> convention is worth it in this case.
Definite agreement here, since _for_each is used for flow control, that
space should be there.
And some people seem to take checkpatch.pl as the gospel, and won't
apply code with checkpatch warnings.
/Christer
--
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