Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:06:51 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> This is a royal pain, since it now throws an ERROR for the obviously
>>> preferable piece of code below:
>>>
>>> if (err) {
>>> do_something();
>>> return -ERR;
>>> } else {
>>> do_somthing_else();
>>> }
>> Hmmm, is that obviouly nicer than the below? Its fully a line longer
>> for no benefit. But ignoring that, this seems to have snuck in to
>> CodingStyle hmmm ... will see what I can do if anything to stop these
>> being picked up I guess.
>>
>> if (err) {
>> do_something();
>> return -ERR;
>> } else
>> do_something_else();
>
> The kool kids on linux-usb-devel largely ended up deciding that the second
> version looks dorky.
>
> Especially if there's a comment over do_something_else(), and if there's
> not a comment, perhaps there should be?
>
>> Andrew, as you merged the change to CodingStyle I'll take that as your
>> being ok with these being accepted.
>
> It's very marginal and is sure to get people hot and bothered. I'd suggest
> that checkpatch be neutral on that.
Ok, now if either the preceeding block or following block has {}'s then
we don't report this block for being one line long. We will miss some
this way, but hey.
-apw
-
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/
[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]
