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: <479F1F69.5000206@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:43:21 +0100
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
CC:	Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com>,
	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

Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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_Backward )
>> +printk("SW: backward compatibility\n");
...
> 
> 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.

Besides, the proposed style "fix" itself violates CodingStyle in at
least two obvious ways.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- ---= ===-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/