Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:32:40 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: indent(1) and style(9) (was: btokup() macro in sys/malloc.h) Message-ID: <19990129143239.J8473@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <99Jan29.074452est.40330@border.alcanet.com.au>; from Peter Jeremy on Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 07:54:18AM %2B1100 References: <99Jan29.074452est.40330@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 7:54:18 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> >> not speaking about vinum, but to me, the indentation of 8 char and >> line length of 80 chars are almost mutually exclusive. >> >> See e.g. tcp_input.c ip_input.c and many network device drivers as >> an example -- basically all places where, for efficiency reasons, >> the code tries to expand in-line various block, > > According to most of the coding standards I've read, readability > (and hence maintainability) come before efficiency. That said, I > agree that efficiency _is_ an issue within the kernel's critical > paths (the TCP/IP code being one). > > Judicious use of inline functions (and macros) should help move > code to the left - and may even make it more understandable. One man's readability is another man's illegibility. I certainly think that macros can really obfuscate things. And moving code away into separate functions also makes it difficult to see the Big Picture. My real issue with style(9) is that it perpetuates the style of the early 70s for no good reason. On the other hand, I very much *do* support a consistent coding style. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990129143239.J8473>