linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] Support named cgroups hierarchies

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:17:51 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Support named cgroups hierarchies

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Li Zefan<lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Because it's not needed for the entire scope of the function. Keeping
>> its scope as small as possible makes it clearer what it's being used
>> for.
>>
>
> If we had been doing this, we'll see many:
>
>        (no if, while, for)
>        {
>                ...
>        }
>
> in kernel code, but I don't remember I ever saw this style.
>

Documentation/CodingStyle is silent on this subject. But OK, I've
moved new_root back to the top level. I think that it's a net loss to
readability though.

Paul
--
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/