netdev - Re: [PATCH] staging: qlge: Fixed extra indentation in qlget_get

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:50:01 +0900
From:   Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@...il.com>
To:     Jarrett Knauer <jrtknauer@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: qlge: Fixed extra indentation in
 qlget_get_stats()

On 2020/02/10 11:31 -0700, Jarrett Knauer wrote:
> On 2020-02-09 9:31 p.m., Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> > On 2020/02/09 00:36 -0700, Jarrett Knauer wrote:
> >> qlge TODO cited weird indentation all over qlge files, with
> >> qlget_get_stats() as an example. With this fix the TODO will need to be
> >> updated as well.
> >>
> >> This is also a re-submission, as I incorrectly sent my first patch
> >> directly to the maintainers instead of to the correct mailing list.
> >> Apologies.
> > If you really want to fix this, I would suggest to go over all of the
> > driver at once. Then you can remove the TODO entry.
> I can do this. Would it be best for me to re-submit this patch in a series of patches with each indentation fix that I go through + a cover letter for the series?

A quick run of `clang-format` shows:
5 files changed, 2305 insertions(+), 2407 deletions(-)
Many of those are unneeded but I guess it will still be a lot of changes.

There is not much benefit to splitting each small indentation fix into
separate patches: it doesn't help to understand the patch, it doesn't
help bisectability, it's debatable that they are logically distinct
changes.

If you want, you could split them into topics like "fix code formatting
in enum/struct definitions/function bodies/preprocessor directives/...
Then again, if the overall changes turn out not to be that large, a
single patch would be fine I think.

Please make sure to read Documentation/process/coding-style.rst; that
doesn't go into every small detail and some things are up to the
preference of whoever wrote the code. In case of doubt, I'd suggest to
look at other drivers in drivers/net/ethernet/ that are not too old:
ice, ionic, sfc, mlx5, ...