linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fasync: Use tabs instead of spaces in code indent

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: <70778cdf726d59d852a3b1262760fb71574f0e91.camel@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Nov 2021 05:58:54 -0500
From:   Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To:     Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        bfields@...ldses.org
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com, tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com,
        xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fasync: Use tabs instead of spaces in code indent

On Wed, 2021-11-10 at 14:29 +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
> When I investigated about fasync_list in SMC network subsystem,
> I happened to find that here uses spaces instead of tabs in code
> indent and fix this by the way.
> 
> Fixes: f7347ce4ee7c ("fasync: re-organize fasync entry insertion to
> allow it under a spinlock")
> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  fs/fcntl.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/fcntl.c b/fs/fcntl.c
> index 9c6c6a3..36ba188 100644
> --- a/fs/fcntl.c
> +++ b/fs/fcntl.c
> @@ -927,7 +927,7 @@ void fasync_free(struct fasync_struct *new)
>   */
>  struct fasync_struct *fasync_insert_entry(int fd, struct file *filp, struct fasync_struct **fapp, struct fasync_struct *new)
>  {
> -        struct fasync_struct *fa, **fp;
> +	struct fasync_struct *fa, **fp;
>  
>  	spin_lock(&filp->f_lock);
>  	spin_lock(&fasync_lock);

Hi Wen,

I usually don't take patches that just fix whitespace like this. The
reason is that these sorts of patches tend to make backporting difficult
as they introduce merge conflicts for no good reason.

When you're making substantial changes in an area, then please do go
ahead and fix up whitespace in the same area, but patches that just fix
up whitespace are more trouble than they are worth.

Sorry,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>