Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle: Printing numbers in parentheses is fine

From: Randy Dunlap
Date: Sat Sep 29 2007 - 18:56:37 EST

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:30:15 -0700 David Brownell wrote:

> > > > Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
> > >
> > > But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
> >
> > Who says that needless parens could provide value?
> Jean, which is why he submitted the patch.
> You, implicitly, by acking a patch saying those parens are bad.
> But not me ... I don't think this patch is merge-worthy.

Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, you did have me confused.

Sure, if something is needless, it doesn't provide value.
So we disagree that some parens are needless. OK.

> > > "Yet Another Subtle And Hard To Fix Source Of Bloat" is
> > > not a plus.
> >
> > ISTM that we agree.
> Evidently not, since removing it would promote such bloat.
> Explicitly removing disapproval is a form of approval...
> > > I'd kind of think a change like this should have some
> > > positive motivation.
> >
> > "Me, I agree that numbers in parens don't usually make sense for
> > kernel messages."
> >
> > It's too trivial to be included in CodingStyle.
> So the reason to remove that guideline, and thereby encourage
> proliferation of needless parens, is ... that some OTHER way
> to get rid of them is working?

Andrew listed some cases where parens make sense. He didn't say
(and I don't say) [oops, parens] that they always make sense,
but the statement in CodingStyle is too strict. Sometimes they
make sense.

> I would agree that line could be improved to say that messages
> should not be needlessly large. Excess parens are one example;
> wordiness is another (including printing 8 bit fields as 0x%08x),
> and I'm sure there are more.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at