Re: PATCH: Fix broken PIO with libata

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Is this agreed upon?  I tend to omit almost all unnecessary (by operator
>> precedence) parenthesis, so in new EH and all other stuff, the "a && b &
>> c" sort of lines are abundant.  If this is something that's agreed upon,
>> I can do a clean sweep over those.
> 
> 
> More parens == easier to review.  So
> 	a && b & c
> should be
> 	a && (b & c)

Understood.  Usually, my rule is something like doing the least
maximizes consistency (style-wise) thus increasing readability in the
end, but rules usually suck, don't they?  What fits the most eyes is the
best, I guess.

> to clearly delineate the separate expressions to the human eye, and also
> make it clear to the reader that the '&' is intended, and not a typo
> that should have been '&&'.
> 
> Anytime you see a long string of 'if' conditions, and the operators
> vary, add parents for readability.
> 

Yeap, will do, from now on.

-- 
tejun