[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m3iquigvqc.fsf@maximus.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:54:03 +0200
From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86: Coding style fixes to arch/x86/kernel/bios_uv.c
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> writes:
>>> const char *str;
>>> switch (status) {
>>> - case 0: str = "Call completed without error"; break;
>>> - case -1: str = "Not implemented"; break;
>>> - case -2: str = "Invalid argument"; break;
>>> - case -3: str = "Call completed with error"; break;
>>> - default: str = "Unknown BIOS status code"; break;
>>> + case 0:
>>> + str = "Call completed without error";
>>> + break;
>>> + case -1:
>>> + str = "Not implemented";
>>> + break;
>>> + case -2:
>>> + str = "Invalid argument";
>>> + break;
>>> + case -3:
>>> + str = "Call completed with error";
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + str = "Unknown BIOS status code";
>>> + break;
>>> }
>>> return str;
>>> }
>>
>> This should be an array in the first place...
>
> Besides, by following CodingStyle to the letter, it arguably breaks
> rather than fixes coding style. The former code was easy enough to
> read.
Right. The latter is much worse. That's why nobody can trust
CodingStyle and/or checkpatch automatically. It's only sane mode
of operation is as a help tool for authors and maintainers, to
quickly locate _potential_ problems.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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