Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> writes:

quoted text
>>>      const char *str;
>>>      switch (status) {
>>> -    case  0: str = "Call completed without error"; break;
>>> -    case -1: str = "Not implemented"; break;
>>> -    case -2: str = "Invalid argument"; break;
>>> -    case -3: str = "Call completed with error"; break;
>>> -    default: str = "Unknown BIOS status code"; break;
>>> +    case  0:
>>> +        str = "Call completed without error";
>>> +        break;
>>> +    case -1:
>>> +        str = "Not implemented";
>>> +        break;
>>> +    case -2:
>>> +        str = "Invalid argument";
>>> +        break;
>>> +    case -3:
>>> +        str = "Call completed with error";
>>> +        break;
>>> +    default:
>>> +        str = "Unknown BIOS status code";
>>> +        break;
>>>      }
>>>      return str;
>>>  }
>>
>> This should be an array in the first place...
>
> Besides, by following CodingStyle to the letter, it arguably breaks
> rather than fixes coding style.  The former code was easy enough to
> read.

Right. The latter is much worse. That's why nobody can trust
CodingStyle and/or checkpatch automatically. It's only sane mode
of operation is as a help tool for authors and maintainers, to
quickly locate _potential_ problems.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/