On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > > + if ((print_timestamp >= touch_timestamp &&
> > > + print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1)) ||
> > > + did_panic || !per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu)) {
> > > return;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > /* do not print during early bootup: */
> > > if (unlikely(system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING)) {
> >
> > patch contains unneeded braces { }.
>
> When there are issues with indentation, those braces are actually not
> unneeded any more, except for the compiler.
>
> Just _look_ at the code. The indentation is not obvious, because the
> if-conditional itself is multiple lines, and indented (arguably wrongly so
> too, but that's another issue).
I strongly agree with your parenthetical remark and think that is
the real problem.
> So it's no longer a trivial one-liner statement, it's a "multi-statement"
> spread out over multiple lines, and I think the braces are actually a good
> idea for things like that.
>
> I also encourage people do do braces when you have nested indentation, ie
>
> if (something)
> if (somethingelse)
> return;
I think that this is wrong only when there is an "else" branch
following this.
> is actively *wrong*, while
>
> if (something) {
> if (somethingelse)
> return;
> }
>
> is right, even though the braces are "unnecessary". Again, it's about the
> visual representation, not about whether the compiler needs them or not.
I agree with your last statement.
And thankfully none of this is in CodingStyle. (oops)
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
