linux-kernel - Re: emacs and "linux" coding style

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m3zkxpf9dt.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:05:02 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@....net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dan Nicolaescu <dann@....org>
Subject: Re: emacs and "linux" coding style

Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> writes:

> Actually, what my code use is tabs with a tab stop of 8 followed by
> enough spaces (< 7) to align function parameters and to align
> open/close parenthesis in C expression line wrap.

To be honest, I do precisely the same, though I think it's far from
perfect. It's just emacs which can't do better (or I don't know how to
make it do better).

> The main problem seems to be that Chapter 9 in
> Documentation/CodingStyle is written by someone who feels that since
> vi makes it easy to only align parameters using tabs, that everybody
> should do it the same way as vi.  I'm simply challenging Chapter 9 as
> being canon.  I certainly ignore it, and as a maintainer I tend to
> accept either vi or emacs-style indentations with respect to
> parameters and C expressions.

Fully agreed.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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/