Re: dual line backtraces for i386.

>> >                         printk(space == 0 ? "     " : "\n");
>> >                         space = !space;
>>
>> readability ?
>
>Well, if I were going for _un_readability I'd have suggested:
>
>        printk(space = !space ? "     " : "\n");

Anyone voting for "\t" instead of "     "?


Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: dual line backtraces for i386.
    • From: Bob Copeland <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: dual line backtraces for i386.
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y
• Next by Date: [PATCH] corruption during e100 MDI register access
• Previous by thread: Re: dual line backtraces for i386.
• Next by thread: Re: dual line backtraces for i386.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]