linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fixed the coding style, labels should not be indented.

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: <dabb158b-8c7f-152e-f9a8-3c6e482af751@ieee.org>
Date:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 09:38:45 -0500
From:   Alex Elder <elder@...e.org>
To:     Manikishan Ghantasala <manikishanghantasala@...il.com>
Cc:     Rui Miguel Silva <rmfrfs@...il.com>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fixed the coding style, labels should
 not be indented.

On 6/2/21 9:27 AM, Manikishan Ghantasala wrote:
> Sending this mail again as I missed to reply to all.
>   Hi Alex,
> 
> I agree those are called bit-field member names rather than labels.
> But the reason I mentioned is because the ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
> gave out a warning saying "labels should not be indented".
> 
> Sorry for the confusion in the name I referred to. So, I think this
> change is needed as I feel this is not following the coding-style by
> having indent before the width for bit field member. I went through
> other places in source code to make sure this is correct, and sent the
> patch after confirmation.

I agree that many instances in the kernel source place the width
of a C bit-field immediately after the colon.  But it is not a
universal convention, and I personally prefer the aligned widths
used by the Greybus code here.

So I don't find this patch acceptable.

					-Alex

> Regards,
> Manikishan Ghantasala
> 
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 19:13, Alex Elder <elder@...e.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/2/21 8:36 AM, sh4nnu wrote:
>>> From: Manikishan Ghantasala <manikishanghantasala@...il.com>
>>>
>>> staging: greybus: gpio.c: Clear coding-style problem
>>> "labels should not be indented" by removing indentation.
>>
>> These are not labels.
>>
>> I don't really understand what you're doing here.
>>
>> Can you please explain why you think this needs changing?
>>
>>                                          -Alex
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Manikishan Ghantasala <manikishanghantasala@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c | 6 +++---
>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
>>> index 7e6347fe93f9..4661f4a251bd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
>>> @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@
>>>    struct gb_gpio_line {
>>>        /* The following has to be an array of line_max entries */
>>>        /* --> make them just a flags field */
>>> -     u8                      active:    1,
>>> -                             direction: 1,   /* 0 = output, 1 = input */
>>> -                             value:     1;   /* 0 = low, 1 = high */
>>> +     u8                      active:1,
>>> +                             direction:1,    /* 0 = output, 1 = input */
>>> +                             value:1;        /* 0 = low, 1 = high */
>>>        u16                     debounce_usec;
>>>
>>>        u8                      irq_type;
>>>
>>