Re: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

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).

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;

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.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/