Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:17:29 +0200 | From | Benny Halevy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] teach checkpatch.pl about list_for_each |
| |
On Jan. 03, 2008, 14:30 +0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> wrote: > Em Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:26:10PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig escreveu: >> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:10:58AM +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote: >>> We have had some stabs at changing this, but no consensus was reached on >>> whether it was a "for" or a "function". My memory is of there being >>> slightly more "without a space" tenders than the other and so it has not >>> been changed. This thread also seems so far to have not really >>> generated a concensus. So I would tend to leave things as they are. >>> >>> A third option might be to accept either on *for_each* constructs. >>> That might tend to lead to divergance. Difficult. However, also see my >>> later comments on "style guide". >> Pretty much all core code uses list_for_each_entry( so new code should >> follow that example. > > Agreed, CodingStyle is not about mindless consistency such as "for (" is > the right thing, so "list_for_each (" is consistent with it, it is about > codifying practice contributors got used to over the years. >
Why mindless? Coding style is also about giving the coding language logic a graphical representation. Following a convention that flow control keywords such as "if", "for", or "while" are distinguished from function calls by use of a space after the keyword really helps the code readability regardless of how people used to code it in the past... The for_each_* macros are clearly not function calls but rather translate to for () flow control constructs hence they should follow the same convention. FWIW, I think that changing the existing convention is worth it in this case.
Benny
> - Arnaldo
| |