[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080326115853.GE22847@logfs.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:58:53 +0100
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, apw@...dowen.org, jirislaby@...il.com,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, joe@...ches.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 109/148] include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only
On Wed, 26 March 2008 04:48:02 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
> > Do you have a non-consistency based reason to prefer the longer
> > version?
>
> Inconstent spacing fools people's eyes and leads to bugs,
> more often than not.
>
> After 15 years of kernel development, I can remember at
> least 10 or so multi-week-debugging sessions that could
> have been curtailed had I not mis-read a poorly spaced
> C statement.
>
> It matters in practical terms, not just consistency terms,
> trust me.
Sure, I buy that. What I'm arguing here is why we have to be
consistently long instead of consistently short. CodingStyle seems to
be silent on the question. And a quick grep shows that while being in
the minority, I seem to be in a sizeable minority:
joern@...lin:/usr/src/kernel/logfs$ sgrep ' \*)' .|wc
51687 346050 4213259
joern@...lin:/usr/src/kernel/logfs$ sgrep '[^ ]\*)' .|wc
5838 33165 472462
What is the reason why (void *)foo is better than (void*)foo? Just that
fact that by random chance one them them became more common in our
codebase and the minority always has to give in?
Jörn
--
A victorious army first wins and then seeks battle.
-- Sun Tzu
--
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