From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD34C4332F for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE29A3CCAEF for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 13:55:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 400F33C1B75 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 13:55:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B125C1494387 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 13:55:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68D641F86B; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:55:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1669121700; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=95xguAUSDF94+Sz3vdic3O+mnKYSR5TOcIZPi0jbBtk=; b=1sYkyPlinblhXMaYtux/R+eNv1si7vPqp8+B9A7V0DMiUhloKBubwc7ZVHnV9C1SEVVBaw e3+H8hveTCNTYcyCEFw8VsAOPbGs/t91zCp/7keGmnnCtw68ze/crXDCydw3P/Jt6ces1A F1/Um2HLWkIN1F15T5+/IurfCiN4f34= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1669121700; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=95xguAUSDF94+Sz3vdic3O+mnKYSR5TOcIZPi0jbBtk=; b=OXtJiL2MQi9lzyO20iAgzyX5qqxJGvXBegdJOei9wxDoKWKqZ/r8ux1ZC/IEQrk6G9O0kC DED/0MXJoxikAMAQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5772813B01; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:55:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id rr8gFKTGfGP3OAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:55:00 +0000 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 13:56:23 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Richard Palethorpe Message-ID: References: <20221115123721.12176-1-jack@suse.cz> <20221115124741.14400-2-jack@suse.cz> <871qpvfa3c.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871qpvfa3c.fsf@suse.de> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 2/3] fanotify10: Add support for multiple event files X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jan Kara , ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > > This is minor, but I would have named the macro FOREACH_PATH() and > > added > > This is actually not in line with the kernel style. At least IIRC > foreach macros are lower case in the instances I have seen. This is also > what we have in tst_cgroup.c for e.g. > > > curly braces around the block. And the same for the rest of the > > invocations. > > At some point checkpatch stopped complaining about this, so it's now the > authors discretion whether to use curly braces in these cases. Unless > there is something wrong with our checkpatch. I do not think that this was ever enforced by checkpatch. > IMO there is no mistaking that it is a loop macro with one function call > in the body. I tend to put the curly braces everywhere where there is a multiline macro/function call because I find that way easier on the eyes... -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp