Thanks for your comments :)
I will pay more attention to what you point out.
"Eric Blake" <ebl...@redhat.com>wrote:
> On 02/23/2018 03:34 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 23.02.2018 08:51, Su Hang wrote:
> >> Add brackets that wrap `if`, `else`, `while` that hold single
> >> statements.
> >>
> >> In order to do this, I write a simple python regex script.
>
> Without documenting the script, no one else can reproduce this; but it's
> no different than if they had manually made changes instead of trying to
> script it, so I'm not sure this sentence adds much in its current form.
>
> >>
> >> Since then, all complaints rised by checkpatch.pl has been suppressed.
>
> s/rised/raised/
> s/Since then,/With that/
> s/has/have/
>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Su Hang <suhan...@mails.ucas.ac.cn>
> >> ---
> >> util/uri.c | 462
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 291 insertions(+), 171 deletions(-)
> >>
>
> >> cur = *str;
> >> - if (!ISA_ALPHA(cur))
> >> + if (!ISA_ALPHA(cur)) {
> >> return 2;
> >> + }
> >> cur++;
> >> - while (ISA_ALPHA(cur) || ISA_DIGIT(cur) ||
> >> - (*cur == '+') || (*cur == '-') || (*cur == '.'))
> >> + while (ISA_ALPHA(cur) || ISA_DIGIT(cur) || (*cur == '+') || (*cur ==
> >> '-') ||
> >> + (*cur == '.'))
> >> cur++;
> >
> > You've changed the while statement, but checkpatch.pl apparently does not
> > complain about missing curly braces here ... that's strange, I thought we'd
> > also wanted to enforce curly braces for while loops.
>
> Maybe because it gets lost since the condition expanded over more than
> one line? But yes, now that we've noticed it manually, it should be
> fixed. While at it, you can avoid the redundant ():
>
> while (ISA_ALPHA(cur) || ISA_DIGIT(cur) || *cur == '+' || *cur == '-' ||
> *cur == '.') {
>
>
> >> - while ((*tmp++ = *segp++) != 0)
> >> + while ((*tmp++ = *segp++) != 0) {
> >> ;
> >> + }
> >
> > A bikeshed-painting-friday question for everybody on qemu-devel:
> > Should there be a single semicolon inside curly braces in this case, or not?
> >
>
> Checkpatch doesn't complain, but lone ';' statements are rare. I'd omit
> it, and use just:
>
> while (cond) {
> }
>
>
> --
> Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
> Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
