Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mc146818rtc: Tidy up indentation

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 24/10/19 14:24, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> -        * if the periodic timer's update is due to period re-configuration,
> -        * we should count the clock since last interrupt.
> -        */
> -        if (old_period) {
> -            int64_t last_periodic_clock, next_periodic_clock;
> +    /*
> +     * if the periodic timer's update is due to period re-configuration,
> +     * we should count the clock since last interrupt.
> +     */
> +    if (old_period) {
> +        int64_t last_periodic_clock, next_periodic_clock;
>  
> -            next_periodic_clock = muldiv64(s->next_periodic_time,
> -                                    RTC_CLOCK_RATE, NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND);
> -            last_periodic_clock = next_periodic_clock - old_period;
> -            lost_clock = cur_clock - last_periodic_clock;
> -            assert(lost_clock >= 0);
> +        next_periodic_clock = muldiv64(s->next_periodic_time,
> +                                RTC_CLOCK_RATE, NANOSECONDS_PER_SECOND);
> +        last_periodic_clock = next_periodic_clock - old_period;
> +        lost_clock = cur_clock - last_periodic_clock;
> +        assert(lost_clock >= 0);
>          }
>  
>          /*

Still not entirely tidy, is it?  I understand making Marcelo's fix just
move a brace, but in general you can review with "git show -b" to see
more clearly what's going on.  Therefore, it would make the most sense
to have just two patches, one reversing the if and one fixing the bug
(and both of them having indentation changes).

However, I'm preparing the pull request now so I think I'll just keep
Marcelo's version.

Paolo