2007/11/1, Tommi Saviranta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 21:30:35 -0300, Leandro wrote:
> > [CCID-4] Adapt CCID-4 according to the latest changes to CCID-3
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leandro Melo de Sales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Another hit from whitespace police. This isn't really about Leandro's
> code, but generally about whitespace usage in Linux kernel. Obviously
> people prefer aligning things:
>
> > .ccid_owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > .ccid_hc_tx_obj_size = sizeof(struct ccid4_hc_tx_sock),
> > .ccid_hc_tx_init = ccid4_hc_tx_init,
>
> Sometimes tabulators are used to fill up most of the gap, followed by
> spaces (like in this case). Sometimes only spaces are used, even for
> gaps longer seven characters. Is there a general consensus about this?
> Do the spaces/tabs just get mixed as the code evolves?
>
> > Index: leandro.new/net/dccp/ccids/ccid4.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- leandro.new.orig/net/dccp/ccids/ccid4.h
> > +++ leandro.new/net/dccp/ccids/ccid4.h
> > @@ -128,10 +128,9 @@ struct ccid4_hc_tx_sock {
> >
> > static inline struct ccid4_hc_tx_sock *ccid4_hc_tx_sk(const struct sock
> > *sk)
> > {
> > - void *ccid4_tx_priv = ccid_priv(dccp_sk(sk)->dccps_hc_tx_ccid);
> > -
> > - BUG_ON(ccid4_tx_priv == NULL);
> > - return ccid4_tx_priv;
> > + struct ccid4_hc_tx_sock *hctx =
> > ccid_priv(dccp_sk(sk)->dccps_hc_tx_ccid);
> > + BUG_ON(hctx == NULL);
> > + return hctx;
> > }
> >
> > /* CCID4 receiver states */
> > @@ -177,10 +176,9 @@ struct ccid4_hc_rx_sock {
> >
> > static inline struct ccid4_hc_rx_sock *ccid4_hc_rx_sk(const struct sock
> > *sk)
> > {
> > - void *ccid4_rx_priv = ccid_priv(dccp_sk(sk)->dccps_hc_rx_ccid);
> > -
> > - BUG_ON(ccid4_rx_priv == NULL);
> > - return ccid4_rx_priv;
> > + struct ccid4_hc_rx_sock *hcrx =
> > ccid_priv(dccp_sk(sk)->dccps_hc_rx_ccid);
> > + BUG_ON(hcrx == NULL);
> > + return hcrx;
> > }
>
> At least this is obvious. Tabulators should be used for indentation
> here. These inline functions finally ended up in lib/tfrc_ccids.h.
>
>
I think that we can now concentrate our efforts on the ccid-4
implementation and pay attention for the next coding. As you said,
many of the code is from ccid-3, then my suggestion is to focus the
job on the ccid-4 implementation and ccid-3/4 code sharing. After
we can quickly solve issues related to code style, what do you think?
Leandro
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
