From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933684AbXGXLTd (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:19:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761125AbXGXLTZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:19:25 -0400 Received: from hellhawk.shadowen.org ([80.68.90.175]:3746 "EHLO hellhawk.shadowen.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759146AbXGXLTZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:19:25 -0400 Message-ID: <46A5E034.2030205@shadowen.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:19:16 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: "Kok, Auke" , Randy Dunlap , Joel Schopp , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08 References: <740c90243aaa6f6d4640d71230c4fa27@pinky> <46A534EA.6030008@intel.com> <46A5C12B.3080904@shadowen.org> <20070724021526.3d92286b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070724021526.3d92286b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:06:51 +0100 Andy Whitcroft wrote: > >>> This is a royal pain, since it now throws an ERROR for the obviously >>> preferable piece of code below: >>> >>> if (err) { >>> do_something(); >>> return -ERR; >>> } else { >>> do_somthing_else(); >>> } >> Hmmm, is that obviouly nicer than the below? Its fully a line longer >> for no benefit. But ignoring that, this seems to have snuck in to >> CodingStyle hmmm ... will see what I can do if anything to stop these >> being picked up I guess. >> >> 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. > > Especially if there's a comment over do_something_else(), and if there's > not a comment, perhaps there should be? > >> Andrew, as you merged the change to CodingStyle I'll take that as your >> being ok with these being accepted. > > It's very marginal and is sure to get people hot and bothered. I'd suggest > that checkpatch be neutral on that. 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. -apw