Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:20:35 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:51:39 +0200 (CEST) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Jul 24 2007 12:19, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > >>>> if (err) {
> > >>>>     do_something();
> > >>>>     return -ERR;
> > >>>> } else {
> > >>>>     do_somthing_else();
> > >>>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> 	if (err) {
> > >>> 		do_something();
> > >>> 		return -ERR;
> > >>> 	} else
> > >>> 		do_something_else();
> > >> 
> > >> The kool kids on linux-usb-devel largely ended up deciding that the second
> > >> version looks dorky.
> > >
> > >Ok, now if either the preceeding block or following block has {}'s then
> > >we don't report this block for being one line long.  We will miss some
> > >this way, but hey.
> > 
> > As per Ingo Molnar [ http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/5/68 ],
> > all blocks in an if-else 'tree' should be {} if there is at least one
> > with more than two statements. (And I do not disagree.)
> 
> You are actually referring to this commit:
> 
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=e659ba4a0d2d471c0d73590f78e1a1b5a1eede48
> 
> which did not appear on lkml for review... :(

Oops, I stand corrected (my previous search was based on the patch filename):

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/5/4/50
or
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117826369817272&w=2


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***