linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] CodingStyle: flip the rule about curlies

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1a03fcbd-151f-4bba-828f-d6aaf40e4116@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 14:44:31 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, corbet@....net
Cc: workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] CodingStyle: flip the rule about curlies



On 5/9/25 1:34 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Require set of curlies {} in all if/else branches and all loops
> not matter how simple.
> 
> The rationale is that maintaining curlies increases churn and make
> patches bigger when those if/else branches grow and shrink so it is
> easier to always add them.
> 
> There are more important things in life than herding curlies.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 57 +++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index 494ab3201112..dc18ff40ebf2 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -280,43 +280,50 @@ supply of new-lines on your screen is not a renewable resource (think
>  25-line terminal screens here), you have more empty lines to put
>  comments on.
>  
> -Do not unnecessarily use braces where a single statement will do.
> +All ``if``, ``for``, ``do``-``while``, ``switch`` and ``while`` statements
> +use braces even when C grammar allows to omit them:
>  
>  .. code-block:: c
>  
> -	if (condition)
> -		action();
> -
> -and
> -
> -.. code-block:: c
> -
> -	if (condition)
> -		do_this();
> -	else
> -		do_that();
> -
> -This does not apply if only one branch of a conditional statement is a single
> -statement; in the latter case use braces in both branches:
> +	if (cond) {
> +		t();
> +	}
>  
> -.. code-block:: c
> +	if (cond) {
> +		t();
> +	} else {
> +		f();
> +	}
>  
> -	if (condition) {
> -		do_this();
> -		do_that();
> +	if (cond1) {
> +		t1();
> +	} else if (cond2) {
> +		t2();
>  	} else {
> -		otherwise();
> +		f();
>  	}
>  
> -Also, use braces when a loop contains more than a single simple statement:
> +	for (int i = 0; i < N; i += 1) {
> +		f(i);
> +	}
>  
> -.. code-block:: c
> +	do {
> +		g();
> +	} while (0);
>  
> -	while (condition) {
> -		if (test)
> -			do_something();
> +	switch (x) {
> +	case X1:
> +		f();
>  	}
>  
> +	while (1) {
> +		f();
> +	}
> +
> +In the future, code will be added and deleted but braces stay untouched.
> +Maitaining them when if branches, loop bodies grow and shrink is useless

   Maintaining

> +busywork not even worthy of discussion.
> +
>  Spaces
>  ******
>  

-- 
~Randy