[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1472496420.3425.77.camel@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:47:00 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Levin, Alexander" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
"ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ?
On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 11:01 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 17:46 +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > [checkpatch] offered the advice
> > to restructure the code with helper functions etc. to avoid deep
> > indentation?
> It suggests that already for 6+ leading tabs,
And here's an inexact little histogram of the code that
expands indent levels in the -next kernel source tree.
$ grep -rP --include=*.[ch] -oh "^[\t]+(do|while|for|if|else|return|goto|continue|switch|default|case|break)\b" * | \
sed -r 's/^(\t+).*$/\1/' | awk '{print length($0)}' | sort -n | uniq -c
1217165 1
783085 2
249655 3
59775 4
11653 5
1993 6
444 7
158 8
50 9
19 10
10 11
4 12
1 13
Some of that code, as Linus once put it, is eye-gouging.
Luckily, almost all of the 7+ tab indent code is prehistoric.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists