Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86-64: use relative 32-bit pointers in exception tables

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 17.02.11 at 18:25, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Nice patch. I've got a really small code readability nitpick:
> 
>> +#ifndef ex_insn /* until all architectures have this accessor */
>> +#define ex_insn(x) (x)->insn
>> +#endif
> 
>> +#else
>> +#define swap_ex NULL
>> +#endif
> 
> In the x86 architecture we tend to write this as:
> 
>> +#else
>> +# define swap_ex NULL
>> +#endif
> 
> So that the conditional structure stands out more, visually. (There might be 
> more 
> such cases in these patches as well.)

I can certainly fix this, but got a comment from (I think) Andrew
Morton to do exactly the opposite quite some time ago, with the
rationale that this indentation leads to more involved patches
when further conditionals get added around them.

As I'll have to fix the test_nx issue hpa pointed out anyway, I can
adjust this as you say, but I'd prefer you to confirm first whether
indeed you think this is the right thing to do in non-x86 code.

Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/