Hi Ben,
A small in-line comment,
On 11/29/2017 12:37 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
+ if (!isdigit((unsigned char)s[0]) ||
+ !isdigit((unsigned char)s[1]) ||
+ !isdigit((unsigned char)s[2])) {
+ printf("string %s does not start with 3-digit code\n", s);
+ }
- *idxp = ((l1_idx << PORT_ARRAY_L1_SHIFT)
- | (l2_idx << PORT_ARRAY_L2_SHIFT)
- | (l3_idx << PORT_ARRAY_L3_SHIFT));
+Do parenthesize a subexpression that must be split across more than one line,
+e.g.::
+
+ *idxp = ((l1_idx << PORT_ARRAY_L1_SHIFT) |
+ (l2_idx << PORT_ARRAY_L2_SHIFT) |
+ (l3_idx << PORT_ARRAY_L3_SHIFT));
+
+Breaking a long line before a binary operator gives its operands a more
+consistent look, since each operand has the same horizontal position. This
+makes the end-of-line position a good choice when the operands naturally
+resemble each other, as in the previous two examples. On the other hand,
+breaking after a binary operator better draws the eye to the operator, which
+can help clarify code by making it more obvious what's happening, such as in
+the following example::
It seems that this last sentence above and the example pointed to below
is backwards. Should say, "On the other hand, breaking *before* a binary
operator better draws the eye to the operator".
Regards,
Tiago.
+
+ if (!ctx.freezing
+ && xbridge->has_in_band
+ && in_band_must_output_to_local_port(flow)
+ && !actions_output_to_local_port(&ctx)) {
+
+Thus, decide whether to break before or after a binary operator separately in
+each situation, based on which of these factors appear to be more important.
Try to avoid casts. Don't cast the return value of malloc().
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
