[PATCH] Add utilities to check style

[Jeremy Allison]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 04:56:59PM -0400, Simo via samba-technical wrote:
> Attached a new patch with some of the requested fixes.
> 
> However while reading README.Coding I noticed we suggest a style I do
> not fully agree with (and that is also flagged by the current style
> checker).
> 
> we say that something like:
> 
> 	for (longline;
> 	     longline;
> 	     longline)
> 	{
> 
> should be used instead of always keeping the opening on the same lne as
> the closing ')' like:
> 
> 	for (longline;
> 	     longline;
> 	     longline) {
> 
> 
> I strongly prefer this second form for consistency, however if people
> feel the first form is ok I will simply drop all braces checks as we
> have no way to easily check for brace conformance anymore.
> 
> Note that the indent script we suggest to use in README.Coding will
> also generate the second form, so we are, at best, inconsistent :-)

+1 from me on the second-form only. I much prefer the brace on the
opening line rather than the line below.