On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 12:41:33AM +0100, Gábor Stefanik wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas > <martinez.javier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > + DWORD err; > > + err = correct_data(buf, redundant_ecc, *(calculate_ecc+1), > > + *(calculate_ecc), *(calculate_ecc+2)); > > Any reason why you didn't unify these 2 lines? Like this: DWORD err = > correct_data(...); > These kind of things aren't described in CodingStyle so they're up to whoever writes the code to decide. Or if the maintainer is a micromanager the maintainer can decide. But personally I much prefer to put anything complicated on separate lines. No one reads the initializers. In my work with Smatch I see a lot of bugs like this: int x = foo->bar; if (!foo) return -EINVAL; It's astounding how many. The famous tun.c security bug was one of these. But there should have been a blank line between the initializers and the code. Otherwise people will think the code is initiliazation and ignore it. That is in CodingStyle I think. We can fix that when we get rid of the DWORD data type in a later patch (don't resend). regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
