Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/10] pseries: Clean up error handling in spapr_rtas_register()

[Markus Armbruster]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> On 01/19/2016 05:21 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
>>> You could drop the redundant () while touching this, as in:
>> 
>> 
>> Seriously? Why? I personally find it really annoying (but I stay silent)
>> when people omit braces in cases like this.
>> 
>> 
>>> assert(token >= RTAS_TOKEN_BASE && token < RTAS_TOKEN_MAX);
>
> Because it's the prevailing style. I estimate that less than 10% of qemu
> over-parenthesizes, mostly because && and || are well-known C operator
> precedence:
>
> $ git grep ' && ' | wc
>    6462   57034  482477
> $ git grep ') && (' | wc
>     578    6151   48655
>
> Of course, that's a rough estimate, as it has false positives on 'if
> (foo() && (b || c))', and false negatives on conditionals where there is
> a unary rather than binary operator on either side of &&; but I'm sure
> you could write a Coccinelle script if you wanted more accurate counting.
>
> But you are equally right that as long as HACKING doesn't document it,
> and checkpatch.pl doesn't flag it, then you can over-parenthesize binary
> arguments to the short-circuiting operators to your aesthetic tastes.

HACKING doesn't document everything.  Trying to document everything
would drown the interesting parts in a sea of platitudes, and still
leave innumerable loopholes.

checkpatch.pl doesn't flag everything.  It checks for *common* unwanted
patterns.

When HACKING and checkpatch.pl are silent, make your change blend in
with the existing code.  Since the existing code overwhelmingly eschews
this kind of superfluous parenthesis, the general rule is to knock them
off unless *local* code overwhelmingly uses them.

Just because HACKING doesn't explicitly prohibit your personal
preferences doesn't mean you get to do leave your stylistic mark on the
code.  Show some taste and make yourself invisible.

[...]