I agree 100%.  If you have anything more complex than
	if (error) return (error);
I want it to look like
	
	if ((expr) || (expr2) || (expr3)) {
		return (error);
	}
> Just look at some of the crap we have in devfs..
No kidding, look at the nested if, that's insane.
>     if (fs_info->devfsd_task == NULL) return (TRUE);
>     if (devfsd_queue_empty (fs_info) && fs_info->devfsd_sleeping) return TRUE;
>     if ( is_devfsd_or_child (fs_info) ) return (FALSE);
>     set_current_state (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>     add_wait_queue (&fs_info->revalidate_wait_queue, &wait);
>     if (!devfsd_queue_empty (fs_info) || !fs_info->devfsd_sleeping)
>         if (fs_info->devfsd_task) schedule ();
>     remove_wait_queue (&fs_info->revalidate_wait_queue, &wait);
>     __set_current_state (TASK_RUNNING);
>     return (TRUE);
I took a pass at this, I think this is better (note the use of 1/2 tabs
as "continuation" lines, that's a Sun thing and it works pretty well:
	if ((fs_info->devfsd_task == NULL) ||
	    (devfsd_queue_empty(fs_info) && fs_info->devfsd_sleeping)) {
		return (TRUE);
	}
	if (is_devfsd_or_child(fs_info)) return (FALSE);
	set_current_state (TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
	add_wait_queue (&fs_info->revalidate_wait_queue, &wait);
	if ((!devfsd_queue_empty (fs_info) || !fs_info->devfsd_sleeping) &&
	    fs_info->devfsd_task) {
	    	schedule();
	}
	remove_wait_queue(&fs_info->revalidate_wait_queue, &wait);
	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
	return (TRUE);
----- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/