On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:12:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I'm just doing my initial read-through,.. however > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:52:40PM +0100, Raphael Gault wrote: > > + if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR) > > + && (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || > > !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG)) > > continue; > > could you please not format code like that. Operators go at the end of > the line, and continuation should match the indentation of the opening > paren. So the above would look like: > > > + if (!(sec->sh.sh_flags & SHF_EXECINSTR) && > > + (strcmp(sec->name, ".altinstr_replacement") || > > !IGNORE_SHF_EXEC_FLAG)) > > continue; > > You appear to be doing that quit consistently, and it is against style.
Raphael, as a heads-up, ./scripts/checkpatch.pl can catch issues like this. You can run it over a list of patches, so for a patch series you can run: $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl *.patch ... and hopefully most of the output will be reasonable. Thanks, Mark.
