From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56828)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1ZoVeZ-0001tt-Am
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:04:37 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1ZoVeT-0000Bd-4L
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:04:31 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45019)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1ZoVeS-0000BZ-Va
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:04:25 -0400
References: <1445012619-23772-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com>
	<1445012619-23772-7-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com>
	<20151019173036.GB8672@thinpad.lan.raisama.net>
	<56252C8B.8050808@twiddle.net>
	<20151019175745.GC8672@thinpad.lan.raisama.net>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <56262DC3.2030309@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:04:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151019175745.GC8672@thinpad.lan.raisama.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 6/9] target-i386: Handle I/O breakpoints
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org



On 19/10/2015 19:57, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 07:46:51AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/19/2015 07:30 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>>>> +        /* Notice when we should enable calls to bpt_io.  */
>>>>> +        return (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], index)
>>>>> +                ? HF_IOBPT_MASK : 0);
>>> checkpatch.pl error:
>>>
>>>   ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
>>>   #57: FILE: target-i386/bpt_helper.c:69:
>>>   +        return (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], index)
>>>
>>>   total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 242 lines checked
>>>
>>> I will fix it in v3.
>>
>> In this case checkpatch is wrong, imo.  The parenthesis are not there to
>> "make return a function", but to make the multi-line expression indent
>> properly.
> 
> I understand if one thinks the expression looks better with the parenthesis,
> but I fail to see why they are needed to indent the expression properly.

Because Emacs indents this:

>     +        return hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], index)
>     +               ? HF_IOBPT_MASK : 0;

with the ? under the second "r" of "return", while it indents this as
written:

>     -        return (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], index)
>     -                ? HF_IOBPT_MASK : 0);

Another random example:

static bool sdl_check_format(DisplayChangeListener *dcl,
                             pixman_format_code_t format)
{
    /*
     * We let SDL convert for us a few more formats than,
     * the native ones. Thes are the ones I have tested.
     */
    return (format == PIXMAN_x8r8g8b8 ||
            format == PIXMAN_b8g8r8x8 ||
            format == PIXMAN_x1r5g5b5 ||
            format == PIXMAN_r5g6b5);
}

There's no unanimity though, so your v3 is okay too.

Paolo