From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NGyW4-0000wk-B7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:33:56 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NGyVz-0000sH-RU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:33:55 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38008 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NGyVz-0000s0-Hq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:33:51 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15848) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NGyVz-0000E1-Eh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:33:51 -0500 Message-ID: <4B1A9973.8090305@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:33:39 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Get coding style closer to the real world References: <1259618155-4217-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <200912041747.06776.paul@codesourcery.com> <4B198D96.6090407@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4B198D96.6090407@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Paul Brook , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 12/05/2009 12:30 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Paul Brook wrote: >> On Monday 30 November 2009, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> Currently we have this stupid role of disallowing: >>> >>> if (r) >>> break; >> >> This has been discussed to death several times, in several different >> paces, and with no clear resolution or consensus, so I'm going to >> make an executive decision: >> >> The coding style stays as-is. Braces are required. Please ensure that >> all patches follow the coding style. There may be exceptions, but >> there should be a *good* reason for deviation. >> >> >> If there are real problems or ambiguities in the coding style then I >> am willing to consider fixing it. This particular change meets >> neither criteria. >> >> By picking a single coding style we've pretty much guaranteed that >> most people will disagree with some of it. IMO consistency is more >> important. > > I agree 100%. +1'ed, and I note that although brace-happy code looks more cluttered it is a bit safer and produces cleaner patches. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.