Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 14:25:30 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r297525 - head/sys/compat/linux Message-ID: <57016E2A.4060301@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20160404045828.M816@besplex.bde.org> References: <201604031440.u33EesB7057019@repo.freebsd.org> <20160404045828.M816@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/04/2016 14:11, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Sun, 3 Apr 2016, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > >> Author: pfg >> Log: >> Fix indentation oops. >> >> Modified: >> head/sys/compat/linux/linux_misc.c >> >> Modified: head/sys/compat/linux/linux_misc.c >> ============================================================================== >> >> --- head/sys/compat/linux/linux_misc.c Sun Apr 3 14:38:26 2016 >> (r297524) >> +++ head/sys/compat/linux/linux_misc.c Sun Apr 3 14:40:54 2016 >> (r297525) >> @@ -896,12 +896,12 @@ linux_utimensat(struct thread *td, struc >> } >> timesp = times; >> >> - if (times[0].tv_nsec == UTIME_OMIT && >> - times[1].tv_nsec == UTIME_OMIT) >> /* This breaks POSIX, but is what the Linux kernel does >> * _on purpose_ (documented in the man page for utimensat(2)), >> * so we must follow that behaviour. */ >> - return (0); >> + if (times[0].tv_nsec == UTIME_OMIT && >> + times[1].tv_nsec == UTIME_OMIT) >> + return (0); >> } >> >> if (args->pathname != NULL) > > The comment is still not written in BSD style. > I didn't change the original. Is it worth it to do another commit to add lines for a beginning and end comment delimiters ? > The patch shows a bug in svn(?) diff. The comment was moved, but the > patch shows movement of the if statement. The indentation was only > changed in the return statement. > > The comment was also misindented. Moving it fixes this, but I prefer > it where it was. Precisely .. I moved the "if" so I would not have to indent further the comment. I find it more readable. > Comments are often placed before an if statement and > not properly worded for that placement. They say that something is > done unconditionally but that is clearly wrong since the action is > conditional on the if statement. Here "this" in the comment used to > refer to the action of returning, but is ambiguous enough to still make > sense after the move. It now refers to the action of doing the check > and sometimes returning. The block of code is short enough that the > ambiguity is easy to resolve. > > Bruce Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?57016E2A.4060301>