Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763894AbYA1XpN (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:45:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752648AbYA1Xo6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:44:58 -0500 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:1636 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751572AbYA1Xo5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:44:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:07:46 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Paolo Ciarrocchi Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] X86: Fix trailing statements should be on next line Message-ID: <20080128230746.GL8953@1wt.eu> References: <20080129000744.698639d3@paolo-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080129000744.698639d3@paolo-desktop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2448 Lines: 58 Hi Paolo, On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:07:44AM +0100, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: > Fix trailing statements should be on next line > -if ( partial_status & SW_C3 ) printk("SW: condition bit 3\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_C2 ) printk("SW: condition bit 2\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_C1 ) printk("SW: condition bit 1\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_C0 ) printk("SW: condition bit 0\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_Summary ) printk("SW: exception summary\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_Stack_Fault ) printk("SW: stack fault\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_Precision ) printk("SW: loss of precision\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_Underflow ) printk("SW: underflow\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_Overflow ) printk("SW: overflow\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_Zero_Div ) printk("SW: divide by zero\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_Denorm_Op ) printk("SW: denormalized operand\n"); > -if ( partial_status & SW_Invalid ) printk("SW: invalid operation\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_Backward ) > +printk("SW: backward compatibility\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_C3 ) > +printk("SW: condition bit 3\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_C2 ) > +printk("SW: condition bit 2\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_C1 ) > +printk("SW: condition bit 1\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_C0 ) > +printk("SW: condition bit 0\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_Summary ) > +printk("SW: exception summary\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_Stack_Fault ) > +printk("SW: stack fault\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_Precision ) > +printk("SW: loss of precision\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_Underflow ) > +printk("SW: underflow\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_Overflow ) > +printk("SW: overflow\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_Zero_Div ) > +printk("SW: divide by zero\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_Denorm_Op ) > +printk("SW: denormalized operand\n"); > +if ( partial_status & SW_Invalid ) > +printk("SW: invalid operation\n"); > #endif /* DEBUGGING */ Well, IMHO, the code was more readable and checkable in the initial version. I think this is one example of exceptions where code appearance is more important than style correctness. Regards, Willy -- 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/