On 25.05.2012, at 10:36, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 10:30 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>>> + while (count--) {
>>> + switch (esize) {
>>> + case 0: tmp = ldub_phys(src);
>>
>> I'm surprised checkpatch didn't complain here. Please do
>>
>> case x:
>> foo();
>> break();
>>
>>> break;
>>> + case 1: tmp = lduw_phys(src); break;
>>> + case 2: tmp = ldl_phys(src); break;
>>> + case 3: tmp = ldq_phys(src); break;
>>> + default:
>>> + return H_PARAMETER;
>
> Checkpatch absolutely complained and I decided to ignore it, seriously,
> you really want to replace a nice & readable piece of code with
> something that takes 3 pages and is generally gross & ugly ?
>
> Some times, you have to ignore check patch and let sanity prevail.
I'm not all that keen on coding style rules. But check out
arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c and tell me that it's a good idea to go with this
"clean" approach. If you want it really clean, put the whole chunk above into a
geberic helper that allows for everyone to say "read n bytes of data with
native endianness into a u64". In that code, the more verbose coding style
checkpatch suggests doesn't hurt and your function becomes even easier to read
:)
>
> Ben.
>
>> Indentation?
>
> Not sure what's up with identation, I had it all fixed up to please
> checkpatch, maybe I screwed up the sending of the patch itself.
It could be my mailer too, no idea :). Just stumbled over it.
> Oh
> well, I'm off to hospital on monday so that will have to wait til I'm
> back (I regret you didn't make those comments on the previous iteration
> of the patch though).
Yeah, it's a shame I didn't read through it more thoroughly earlier - at least
it didn't take weeks in this round ;).
No worries though, if you can't make it until Monday, I'll fix it up myself
afterwards :). There's no black magic involved here, so I should be ok to
respin myself.
Alex
