From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MloWH-00051s-Pt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:37:21 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MloWC-0004s6-CT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:37:20 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39208 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MloWC-0004rm-3S
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:37:16 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28447)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <markmc@redhat.com>) id 1MloWB-0003Un-LB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:37:15 -0400
Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8AIbEo2027125
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:37:14 -0400
Subject: Re: braces [was Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/19] Remove double error
	message in qemu_option_set()]
From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090910180312.GD521@redhat.com>
References: <1252595941-15196-1-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com>
	<1252595941-15196-4-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com>
	<20090910180312.GD521@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:36:09 +0100
Message-Id: <1252607769.3403.62.camel@blaa>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 21:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:18:45PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > qemu_opt_set() prints an error message in all failure cases, so
> > qemu_set_option() doesn't need to print another error.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
> 
> Same comment about {} here

That's 3 of these you and Juan have found. And, genuinely, I try not to
do this. Just shows how much of reflex it is.

IMHO,

  if (blaa(foo, bar, doodah) == NULL)
      return -1;

is far nicer than:

  if (blaa(foo, bar, doodah) == NULL) {
      return -1;
  }

but OTOH, this:

  if (blaa(foo, bar, doodah) == NULL) {
      return doodah(foo, bar, blaa);
  }

*is* arguably better than:

  if (blaa(foo, bar, doodah) == NULL)
      return doodah(foo, bar, blaa);

There's enough of both ways in the code that I think either should be
acceptable.

Cheers,
Mark.