Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758103AbYBAQWN (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:22:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755249AbYBAQV4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:21:56 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57897 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755214AbYBAQVz (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:21:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:21:39 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Paolo Ciarrocchi , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] X86: Fix trailing statements should be on next line Message-ID: <20080201162139.GC15156@elte.hu> References: <20080129000744.698639d3@paolo-desktop> <20080128230746.GL8953@1wt.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080128230746.GL8953@1wt.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2699 Lines: 62 * Willy Tarreau wrote: > 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. definitely so. The rule of thumb is: if in doubt, use your human taste. Does it 'look' better? If not, dont do the change. Ingo -- 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/