From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECFBDDDE0F for ; Thu, 1 May 2008 07:02:07 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20080430172254.GA28169@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> References: <20071023212404.GA30942@loki.buserror.net> <20080428203322.GD15223@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <18454.42926.213374.977098@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20080430172254.GA28169@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2af4cf23ed3fc48c87b50a5f63d868d7@kernel.crashing.org> From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Implement arch disable/enable irq hooks. Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:01:47 +0200 To: Scott Wood Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , Guennadi Liakhovetski List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >> 3. The style in all the assembly code is not to have spaces after >> commas separating instruction operands. > > I'll do that if that's what is prefered, but how did that come about as > the style used? It's different from what we do in C, But this isn't C code, it's assembler code. PowerPC assembler code (and most other assembler code) doesn't use spaces here usually. > and adding the > space helps readability in asm as well... Many people disagree ;-) Anyway, it's better to keep a consistent style, whatever that style is, don't you agree? Segher