From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:41032 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993054AbXEBMFs (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 08:05:48 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <20061127165138.GA2991@lst.de> <20070430040213.BF9901801A4@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20070430091121.GC31397@infradead.org> <20070430100917.439ebfc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1178028973.2875.78.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <9185.1178035627@redhat.com> <24844.1178098371@redhat.com> Subject: Re: condingstyle, was Re: utrace comments Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 13:05:34 +0100 Message-ID: <31688.1178107534@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." , David Woodhouse , Geert Uytterhoeven , Satyam Sharma , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Roland McGrath , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > But the condition doesn't line up with the code: > > Exactly. The condition not lining up with the following code helps > code helps separate the two. Sorry about that: I realised you were agreeing with me about 5s after I sent the message. > However there is the practical way to solve this if you have > a sufficiently large conditional, or the conditional appears > several times. That doesn't necessarily work - for instance if the condition has side effects on local variables (eg: postinc). OTOH, large complex conditions with side effects have to be abused with care and preferably avoided. goto is your friend:-) David