Re: [PATCH 1/3] bridge: netfilter: checkpatch whitespace fixes

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Wed, 2016-06-08 at 13:52 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:02:30AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 19:34 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:04:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > One more question, is this chunk below correct from
> > > > coding style point of view?
> > >         if (info->bitmask & EBT_STP_ROOTADDR) {
> > >                 verdict = 0;
> > >                 for (i = 0; i < 6; i++)
> > > -                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2+i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
> > > -                                  c->root_addrmsk[i];
> > > +                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2 + i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
> > > +                               c->root_addrmsk[i];
> > > 
> > > I think the previous line is fine.
> > "2+i" or "2 + i", either is OK.
> > Multiple line statement alignment doesn't
> > matter much.
> Sorry, I was actually refering to:
[]

Hi again Pablo.

No worries.  I hoped the "doesn't matter much" was clear enough.

There are many different multiple line statement alignment
styles in the kernel.

Alignment to open parenthesis is one of them, and I think it's
reasonable to standardize on that.

For multiple line statements without parentheses for alignment,
I think there isn't one style that's much better than another.

I slightly prefer the original alignment above myself.

> > Perhaps it's better to add a function for this though.
> I like this function idea :).

Maybe something like this is clearer:

static bool ebt_test_addr(const uint8_t *root, const char *addr,
			  const char *mask)
{
	int i;

	for (i = 0; i < ETH_ALEN; i++) {
		if ((root[2 + i] ^ addr[i]) & mask[i])
			return true;
	}

	return false;
}

Maybe the call should add the + 2 to the first argument
instead of using + 2 in the loop.