On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 07:15:47AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:27:43 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 06:17:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: ... > > > + __builtin_choose_expr(__typecheck(val, lo) && __typecheck(val, hi) &&\ > > > + __typecheck(hi, lo) && __is_constexpr(val) &&\ > > > + __is_constexpr(lo) && __is_constexpr(hi), \ > > > + __clamp(val, lo, hi), \ > > > + __clamp_once(val, lo, hi, __UNIQUE_ID(__val), \ > > > __UNIQUE_ID(__lo), __UNIQUE_ID(__hi))); }) > > > > ...but this one becomes less readable. I think checkpatch is always a > > recommendation than requirement. I would leave at least the last as is, but > > formally I think the entire patch is a churn to satisfy controversial > > recommendation. > > This wasn't really a checkpatch thing. I looked at the code in an > 80-col window and nearly died. It wasn't *necessary* to make it look > so bad in 80 cols, so why do it? That's exactly my point, the parts ' &&\' in the proposed patch looks not good to me. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
