[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1370145135.2086.10.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 20:52:15 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] Clean up indentation in net/ipv6/transp_v6.h
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 12:44 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > How is that churn different than the entire patch?
>
> I changed the indentation because patch 2 in the set introduced
> another function and I didn't know how to indent it. Currently, some
> declarations are not tab-indented, some are tab-indented to column 40,
> and some are tab-indented to column 32. I thought that while I was at
> it I might change them to be consistent. So this patch changes it so
> they're all tab-indented to column 24; I thought that was more
> readable.
>
> That said, I don't have strong feelings about the indentation - my
> main goal here was removing code duplication. If I reverted the
> indentation patch and just aligned the new function to the function
> above it, would that be better?
Hey Lorenzo.
I think you should use whatever you think appropriate without
trying to fix the other function prototypes.
Otherwise, I'd do what I suggested in my first email.
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists