Re: [PATCH] whitespace cleanups for fs/cifs/file.c

[Jesper Juhl]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Andreas Dilger wrote:

> On Mar 07, 2005  10:26 +0100, Edgar, Bob wrote:
> > I lurk on the list and didn't comment last time but there is one aspect
> > of this patch that I think is "bad" style. The function declaration should
> > not be on the same line with the type. Why? Try to find the file where a
> > function is defined instead of used. If you grep "^funcname" you'll find
> > it quite simply. The same is true in YFE (mine being vi) /^funcname gets
> > me there in one shot.
> > 
> > This may not seem an important thing but when you are coming into a
> > project cold and don't know how anything works or where it lives it
> > can be very important. Consider trying to find where some common
> > function from a library is defined in a project with sever 1000 files.
> 
> Tags is your friend.  See "make tags" (for vim) or "make TAGS" (for *emacs).
> This is far more efficient than "grep -r ^funcname linux" if you don't even
> know what file a function/struct is defined in.  Use CTRL-] to jump to the
> function/struct under the cursor and CTRL-T to pop back out.
> 
> 
> Ironically, the whitespace patch gets the small things right, but misses
> on the big readability issues, such as cifs_open() being 220 lines long
> and having a _really_ hard time staying inside 80 columns because of so
> many levels of nested conditionals.
> 
I wanted to stick to smaller changes initially. I can submit a patch for 
that function if Steve wants it.

> Judicious use of gotos and some helper functions would help a lot
> here (e.g.  after CIFSSMBOpen() "if (rc) { ... goto out; }" and
> "if (!file->private_data) goto out;", would avoid indenting the rest
> of the function 16 columns.  Adding a couple helper functions like
> "cifs_convert_flags()" to return desiredAccess and disposition, and
> "cifs_init_private_data()" to allocate ->private_data and initialize
> the masses of fields would be good.
> 
> Is it possible that pCifsInode can ever be NULL???  Similarly, "if (buf)"
> on line 196 is needless, as it has already been checked on line 153
> (and we abort in that case).  Also, kfree() can handle NULL pointers.
> 
I'm aware of those isues, and I am planning to submit patches for them, 
but I wanted to wait and get Steve's response to the smaller cleanups 
first.


-- 
Jesper 


-
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/