| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:10:47 +0100 From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@...il.com> To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Cc: linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...cmu.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 02:48, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote: > Why did you replaced a tab with spaces here?? The first tab is indentation, displaying the logical nesting level. The second tab including the whitespaces after it was formatting. Although the official tab width in the linux kernel is 8 chars, not all code adheres to this rule. Maintaining a clear separation between indentation and formatting, i.e. using tabs as initially intended, helps to keep everyone happy, no matter what tab width they use. If this change is actually controversial, I have no problem removing this part from the patch. However, it is my _strong_ feeling, that it is beneficial to keep it. If there is any wider interest in this topic, I am more than willing to take this up on the main list in a separate thread. Unless it has already been discussed, of course. Thanks for looking at the patch, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists