On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelv...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi Ilya, > > Thanks for adding me. > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:16:13 +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:12 AM, SF Markus Elfring >> <elfr...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >> >>> @@ -1064,7 +1064,7 @@ static int rbd_header_from_disk(struct rbd_device >> >>> *rbd_dev, >> >>> header->snap_sizes = snap_sizes; >> >>> >> >>> return 0; >> >>> -out_2big: >> >>> + out_2big: >> >>> ret = -EIO; >> >>> kfree(snap_sizes); >> >>> free_names: >> > … >> >> Can you point where this current convention is documented? >> > >> > Yes. >> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/Documentation/CodingStyle?id=865a1caa4b6b886babdd9d67e7c3608be4567a51 >> >> Huh. That patch is not in Linus' tree. >> >> > >> > Do you find the software update "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter >> > 7" interesting? >> > >> > >> >> Certainly not in CodingStyle, AFAICT... >> > >> > I suggest to look at the current version once more. >> > >> > >> >> I know some people prefer a single space in there because it makes >> >> "diff -p" work better, but nowadays with "git diff" this argument is >> >> pretty moot. >> > >> > Would you like to discuss the corresponding software evolution a bit more? >> >> Jon, could you please yank 865a1caa4b6b ("CodingStyle: Clarify and >> complete chapter 7") from your linux-next branch or at least change "It >> is advised to indent labels" to something less stronger? It hasn't >> even hit mainline yet and we are already getting spammed. > > The problem isn't the documentation update nor whether you or me like a > space before labels or not. The problem is Markus Elfring. The guy just > spend his time flooding maintainers with unneeded changes they never > asked for. Ignore him and you'll be much better. If he was not flooding > you with this, he would find something else :-( > > When I wrote "It is advised to indent labels with one space", I never > meant that all the existing code should be converted that way. I
Hi Jean, That much is clear, however ... > expressed a preference, and provided a rationale for this preference. > After that, an advice is just that: an advice. > >> Looks like 9 out of 10 labels are not indented >> >> $ git grep '^[a-z0-9]\+:' -- *.c | wc -l >> 27945 >> $ git grep '^ [a-z0-9]\+:' -- *.c | wc -l >> 2925 > > Your regexps are wrong ;-) but the ratio is correct. ... one of the main points of any coding style is consistency. When someone new wanting to submit say a new driver opens CodingStyle and sees "It is advised to indent labels ...", they might start indenting labels in their code and advise others to do the same. Given the 9/10 existing ratio, that advice is wrong. If I wanted to clarify the situation, I'd have gone with "one space indented labels are also acceptable" or so. The example you've re-indented dates back to 2.6.4 times... > >> so I'd say that's a bad advise as far as consistency goes, and the >> "diff -p" argument is pretty moot nowadays. > > It wasn't moot when I sent the documentation update patch. Or why would > you think it was? "git diff", by default, behaves exactly the same as > "diff -p" with regards to unindented labels (i.e. it doesn't handle > them properly.) The git diff xfuncname incantation is a few years old now. git diff also works on regular files, BTW. > > However, since then the issue was discussed somewhere else: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/5/214 > > As you can see, alternatives to indenting labels with one space were > found. Therefore you will soon be correct saying "the diff -p argument > is pretty moot." As soon as my patch hits mainline, actually. Which > shouldn't take too long as Andrew Morton picked it 4 days ago. > > Once this happens, I'm fine with CodingStyle being updated again to > reflect the current situation. I'm not sure which patch you are talking about - the message you linked is not a patch and it's impossible to follow large threads on lkml.org. Thanks, Ilya
