Re: [PATCH v12 6/7] eal: add unit tests for atomic bit access functions

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

10/10/2024 14:35, Mattias Rönnblom:
> On 2024-10-10 14:14, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 1:56 PM Mattias Rönnblom <hofors@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> Your argument above makes sense, but I also find the kernel style more 
> visually appealing.
> 
> > 
> > In the end, I was left with cases like:
> >          <some code> \
> >   \
> >          <some code> \
> > 
> > And I preferred to remove this extra line as it did not enhance the
> > clarity of those macros.
> > 
> > 
> 
>            <some code> \
>                        \
>            <some code> \
> 
> Would have been visually more appealing, but less consistent.
> 
> To me, removing these delimiting empty lines is no different from doing 
> the same in a regular C function. Empty lines are delimiters, there to 
> group related statements, and they serve a purpose. Now, the macros look 
> like they are written by someone who doesn't care about readability.

Coding style discussions may become endless.
At the end, the maintainers have to decide.

In this case, the problem is having complex macros.
That's why we tend to forbid macros when possible.

I understand your frustration that your commit does not show how you wanted it to appear.
Please understand that David did his best to make it easy to maintain, consistent,
and - the most important - merged in -rc1, given the limited time we all have.

Nothing is perfect, but we all try our best.
Thanks