netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 09/10] qed: align adjacent 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: <20200821124004.000026b5@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:40:04 -0700
From:   Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:     Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>
Cc:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
        Michal Kalderon <mkalderon@...vell.com>,
        "Alexander Lobakin" <alobakin@...vell.com>,
        Michal Kalderon <michal.kalderon@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 09/10] qed: align adjacent indent

Igor Russkikh wrote:

> Fix indent on some of adjacent declarations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...vell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Kalderon <michal.kalderon@...vell.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/qed/qed_if.h | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/qed/qed_if.h b/include/linux/qed/qed_if.h
> index 1297726f2b25..b8fb80c9be80 100644
> --- a/include/linux/qed/qed_if.h
> +++ b/include/linux/qed/qed_if.h
> @@ -897,14 +897,14 @@ struct qed_common_ops {
>  
>  	void		(*simd_handler_clean)(struct qed_dev *cdev,
>  					      int index);
> -	int (*dbg_grc)(struct qed_dev *cdev,
> -		       void *buffer, u32 *num_dumped_bytes);
> +	int		(*dbg_grc)(struct qed_dev *cdev,
> +				   void *buffer, u32 *num_dumped_bytes);
>  
> -	int (*dbg_grc_size)(struct qed_dev *cdev);
> +	int		(*dbg_grc_size)(struct qed_dev *cdev);
>  
> -	int (*dbg_all_data) (struct qed_dev *cdev, void *buffer);
> +	int		(*dbg_all_data)(struct qed_dev *cdev, void *buffer);
>  
> -	int (*dbg_all_data_size) (struct qed_dev *cdev);
> +	int		(*dbg_all_data_size)(struct qed_dev *cdev);
>  
>  	int		(*report_fatal_error)(struct devlink *devlink,
>  					      enum qed_hw_err_type err_type);

Was there a reason to do the indenting? I would just replace this patch
with unindenting everything. In general over time the time indent thing
is unmaintainable and just generates inconsistency over time.