From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <18086.41665.610756.139183@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:09:21 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Andy Whitcroft Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] ps3: Disk Storage Driver In-Reply-To: <46A5E610.7000508@shadowen.org> References: <20070716161539.075822000@pademelon.sonytel.be> <20070716162206.392129000@pademelon.sonytel.be> <20070718163637.3f0e0164.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <46A5E610.7000508@shadowen.org> Cc: Jens Axboe , "James E.J. Bottomley" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alessandro Rubini , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Jens Axboe , Geert Uytterhoeven , Andrew Morton List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Andy Whitcroft writes: > Ok, this is something we need to decide on. Currently we only ask for > consistent spacing on all the mathematic operators. This is mostly as > we do see a large number of non-spaced uses in defines and the like. > > I am happy to expand these tests so they are always spaced on both sides > style if that is the preference. It depends very much on the context - on the precedence and relative importance of one operator with respect to other operators and the statement as a whole. In general I prefer spaces around binary operators, but there are situations where not putting spaces around some operators can enhance the readability of the statement as a whole. If checkpatch.pl starts whinging about operators without spaces that will just be yet another reason not to use it IMHO. Also, I prefer the style where the ? and : operators have a space after them but not before them, rather than a space either side. Paul.