lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work


On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > + if ((print_timestamp >= touch_timestamp &&
> > + print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1)) ||
> > + did_panic || !per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu)) {
> > return;
> > + }
> >
> > /* do not print during early bootup: */
> > if (unlikely(system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING)) {
>
> patch contains unneeded braces { }.

When there are issues with indentation, those braces are actually not
unneeded any more, except for the compiler.

Just _look_ at the code. The indentation is not obvious, because the
if-conditional itself is multiple lines, and indented (arguably wrongly so
too, but that's another issue).

So it's no longer a trivial one-liner statement, it's a "multi-statement"
spread out over multiple lines, and I think the braces are actually a good
idea for things like that.

I also encourage people do do braces when you have nested indentation, ie

if (something)
if (somethingelse)
return;

is actively *wrong*, while

if (something) {
if (somethingelse)
return;
}

is right, even though the braces are "unnecessary". Again, it's about the
visual representation, not about whether the compiler needs them or not.

Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-17 20:19    [W:0.110 / U:11.508 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site