netdev - Re: [PATCH 01/10] ftgmac100: Upgrade to NETIF_F_HW

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: <20170411.112733.1412982560568816717.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     benh@...nel.crashing.org
Cc:     sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] ftgmac100: Upgrade to NETIF_F_HW_CSUM

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 21:13:45 +1000

> On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 13:57 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>>     Need {} here as well since the 1st branch has it -- see 
>> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst (the end of the section 3).
> 
> Adding {} in that specific statements just makes things more
> cluttered and less readable.
> 
> I can find a ton of examples of 
> 
> 	if (...) {
> 		multi lines
> 		...
> 	} else if (...)
> 		single_line()
> 
> In existing kernel code.

Existing practice not following the coding style rules does not dictate
that it's OK to do so.

> I'll fix it in a next spin if Dave wants it that way but otherwise
> I'm keen to leave it as it is.

Please fix this and respin.

Meanwhile get the coding style rules changed if you disagree with
them.  A patch series review is not the place to argue about your
disagreement with the coding style rules.

Thanks.