Re: switch identation was: Re: [Kernel-janitors] [PATCH] Fix warning

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>]

Em Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:40:04AM -0800, Randy.Dunlap escreveu:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:36:20 -0200 Luiz Fernando Capitulino <lcapitulino@prefeitura.sp.gov.br> wrote:
> 
> | 
> | Hi Randy,
> | 
> | Em Qua, 2004-01-07 às 22:45, Randy.Dunlap escreveu:
> | 
> | > | >>  Should I rediff ?
> | > 
> | > No.  But that
> | > +	if(! pdev_is_sata(dev)) {
> | > is really ugly (the spacing in "if(! " part of it).
> | > 
> | > And all this warning needs to fix it is an additional semi-colon, like:
> | > 
> | > -sata_skip:
> | > +sata_skip:;
> | > 
> | > although I don't disapprove of the intent of your patch.
> | 
> |  So, I will rediff only for the "if(! ". Ok ?
> 
> OK, I'll merge that, except that if and switch are not functions,
> so we usually put a space after them and before the opening '('
> [yes, I'm slightly disagreeing with acme's proposed switch formatting].

not at all, if I proposed something like:

	switch(foo) {
.
.
.

I'd be nuts 8)


	switch (foo) {
	case bar:
		__bar();
		break;
	case baz:
		__baz();
		break;
	default:
		printk(KERN_ERR "whatever\n");
		break;
	}

Is how I write my code and fix other's :)

- Arnaldo

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors