From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1945975AbXEAUot (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 16:44:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1945966AbXEAUok (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 16:44:40 -0400 Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.238]:31965 "EHLO hu-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1945992AbXEAUoC (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 16:44:02 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=pmQJDV/tFDB9mvsC44LP6a40z/gtZyqfXUnqs5qil9QHmhhsdxIUCGjBf4HyLs+ruqZrVDMUWWs/jsL7nNYoEHL+vQKK82cpPMj28N906tQBBKSyOZmMVjR8MuHP0KUm9HjZ11ctHo06ZfY64Z2/yornqxGFV/qcYXGA6gJh/I0= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 02:14:00 +0530 From: "Satyam Sharma" To: "David Woodhouse" Subject: Re: condingstyle, was Re: utrace comments Cc: "Randy Dunlap" , "Geert Uytterhoeven" , "Andrew Morton" , "Christoph Hellwig" , "Roland McGrath" , "Christoph Hellwig" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1178032014.2875.80.camel@pmac.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061127165138.GA2991@lst.de> <20070430040213.BF9901801A4@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20070430091121.GC31397@infradead.org> <20070430100917.439ebfc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1178028973.2875.78.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070501080544.459a6ec9.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <1178032014.2875.80.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/1/07, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:05 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > I prefer this format also, but I'm not sure that we can get it > > into CodingStyle. CodingStyle is about (either) concensus or > > dictum, but I don't see us close to concensus... Yes, some of these styles are too personal and subjective to even try and standardize. And then often even the same person doesn't follow a single convention across his own code. More likely you'd succeed standardizing *religion* than this ... > CodingStyle is mostly about consensus. We don't have a consensus, which > is why this particular stuff isn't specified in CodingStyle. :) Actually, I'm not sure if we really gain much by finding consensus for this particular stuff. Most compound conditions only contain upto 3-4 operators/expressions, so most of the styles discussed here would be almost equally readable. And any code that goes beyond 3-4 operators/expressions is probably ugly in many other ways and needs to fix its logic.