On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 09:11:32PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > > Sent: Monday, 13 May 2024 17.55 > > > > On Mon, 13 May 2024 14:08:07 +0100 > > Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > 2. Double tab indentation vs parenthesis align > > > if (iter->bus != NULL && > > > - /* not in middle of rte_eth_dev iteration, */ > > > - iter->class_device == NULL) { > > > + /* not in middle of rte_eth_dev iteration, */ > > > + iter->class_device == NULL) { > > > > > > DPDK coding guide suggests double tab, but also accepts alignment by > > > spaces. But as far as I can see most of code has double tab. > > > Majority of the diff caused because of this rule. > > > > > > I personally am more used the aligned style, and most tools support > > that. > > The DPDK one is unique (not done by most other projects). So can we just > > keep the kernel (what is this clang-format) version. > > I personally prefer the double tab. > It also works with editors showing tab as 4 space indentation. > > Mixing tabs and spaces only works if the editor shows tabs as 8 space > indentation. > > Double tab works with both editor configurations. > > And there is no confusion if the following block happens to be aligned with > the following parameters. E.g.: > > if fool(x, > y) > myfn(); > > vs. > > if fool(x, > y) > myfn(); >
+1, I also prefer the double tab too for this reason. The other consideration is that double tab leads to smaller diffs on refactor - with aligning brackets if something on the first line changes it could cause whitespace changes to be needed on all subsequent lines Overall, ignoring our individual preferences, since we already have a mix in DPDK, I think it's infeasible to try and enforce a single standard now. :-( /Bruce
