[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <564D1EF7.4000707@lab.ntt.co.jp>
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