From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758577AbXFVP4R@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758577AbXFVP4R (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:56:17 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757312AbXFVP4D
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:56:03 -0400
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:52334 "EHLO
	ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757348AbXFVP4B (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:56:01 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=CwsgMOl96bIbWd50/44NBgNZEzv3hwAX6VbxtxJeoFXyQsygoLw8u2UDeSF2h1IOmfiQCqxf7YFf2W5GKKvXJMRq1BKej5WundvZDS3syHgzHIPZSYZRMTeTMWRzU1XmV9JGsom6y6w5131jWU3F3eREE4ope94R4FpOrzAq4L8=
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:54:09 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bracing the loop in kernel/softirq.c
Message-ID: <20070622155409.GA8283@cvg>
References: <20070620175737.GA6523@cvg> <9a8748490706201401m36b1e917g5a600951d48e4cf8@mail.gmail.com> <467AC8E9.1000605@goop.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <467AC8E9.1000605@goop.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge - Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:52:25AM -0700]
> Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> On 20/06/07, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This trivial patch adds braces over a one-line
>>> loop. That makes code...well... little bit
>>> convenient for (possible) further modifications.
>>>
>> That's generally not done.
>>
>> It's even in Documentation/CodingStyle :
>>
>> "
>> Do not unnecessarily use braces where a single statement will do.
>>
>> if (condition)
>>        action();
>> "
>
> I tend to see "do {} while()" as an exception to this.  I find the 
> construct is sufficiently rare that it helps to emphasize it a bit.  For 
> example if I'm scanning code and I see:
>
> 	while (foo != NULL);
>
> in the corner of my eye, I'm going to think "huh?".  But:
>
> 	} while (foo != NULL);
>
> visually "parses" properly, regardless of how near or far the corresponding 
> "do  {" is.
>
> (And of course, its consistent with the super extra special while-while 
> loop:
>
> 	while (foo != NULL) {
> 		foo = bar();
> 		piffle();
> 	} while (foo != NULL);	// make sure we loop properly
>
> ;)
>
>    J
>

Btw, Jeremy, could you please Ack it then and I'll resend the patch to Andrew ;)

		Cyrill