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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:59:35 +0900 From: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa_takuya_b1@....ntt.co.jp> To: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] KVM: x86: MMU: Add helper function to clear a bit in unsync child bitmap On 2015/11/18 11:44, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > On 11/12/2015 07:50 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: >> + if (!ret) { >> + clear_unsync_child_bit(sp, i); >> + continue; >> + } else if (ret > 0) { >> nr_unsync_leaf += ret; > > Just a single line here, braces are unnecessary. > >> - else >> + } else >> return ret; I know we can eliminate the braces, but that does not mean we should do so: there seems to be no consensus about this style issue and checkpatch accepts both ways. Actually, some people prefer to put braces when one of the if/else-if/else cases has multiple lines. You can see some examples in kernel/sched/core.c: see hrtick_start(), sched_fork(), free_sched_domain(). In our case, I thought putting braces would align the else-if and else and make the code look a bit nicer, but I know this may be just a matter of personal feeling. In short, unless the maintainer, Paolo for this file, has any preference, both ways will be accepted. Takuya -- 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