linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] X86: Fix trailing statements should be on next line

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]

Message-ID: <20080128230746.GL8953@1wt.eu>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:07:46 +0100
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] X86: Fix trailing statements should be on next line

Hi Paolo,

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:07:44AM +0100, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> Fix trailing statements should be on next line

> -if ( partial_status & SW_C3 )          printk("SW: condition bit 3\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_C2 )          printk("SW: condition bit 2\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_C1 )          printk("SW: condition bit 1\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_C0 )          printk("SW: condition bit 0\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_Summary )     printk("SW: exception summary\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_Stack_Fault ) printk("SW: stack fault\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_Precision )   printk("SW: loss of precision\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_Underflow )   printk("SW: underflow\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_Overflow )    printk("SW: overflow\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_Zero_Div )    printk("SW: divide by zero\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_Denorm_Op )   printk("SW: denormalized operand\n");
> -if ( partial_status & SW_Invalid )     printk("SW: invalid operation\n");

> +if ( partial_status & SW_Backward )
> +printk("SW: backward compatibility\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_C3 )
> +printk("SW: condition bit 3\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_C2 )
> +printk("SW: condition bit 2\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_C1 )
> +printk("SW: condition bit 1\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_C0 )
> +printk("SW: condition bit 0\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_Summary )
> +printk("SW: exception summary\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_Stack_Fault )
> +printk("SW: stack fault\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_Precision )
> +printk("SW: loss of precision\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_Underflow )
> +printk("SW: underflow\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_Overflow )
> +printk("SW: overflow\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_Zero_Div )
> +printk("SW: divide by zero\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_Denorm_Op )
> +printk("SW: denormalized operand\n");
> +if ( partial_status & SW_Invalid )
> +printk("SW: invalid operation\n");
>  #endif /* DEBUGGING */

Well, IMHO, the code was more readable and checkable in the initial
version. I think this is one example of exceptions where code appearance
is more important than style correctness.

Regards,
Willy

--
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/