Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf/verifier: fix code formatting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:24 AM Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/28/19 5:37 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > -#define REALLOC_STATE_FN(NAME, COUNT, FIELD, SIZE)                   \
> > -static int realloc_##NAME##_state(struct bpf_func_state *state, int size, \
> > -                               bool copy_old)                        \
> > -{                                                                    \
> > -     u32 old_size = state->COUNT;                                    \
> > -     struct bpf_##NAME##_state *new_##FIELD;                         \
> > -     int slot = size / SIZE;                                         \
> > -                                                                     \
> > -     if (size <= old_size || !size) {                                \
> > -             if (copy_old)                                           \
> > -                     return 0;                                       \
> > -             state->COUNT = slot * SIZE;                             \
> > -             if (!size && old_size) {                                \
> > -                     kfree(state->FIELD);                            \
> > -                     state->FIELD = NULL;                            \
> > -             }                                                       \
> > -             return 0;                                               \
> > -     }                                                               \
> > +#define REALLOC_STATE_FN(NAME, COUNT, FIELD, SIZE)                        \
> > +static int realloc_##NAME##_state(struct bpf_func_state *state, int size,    \
> > +                               bool copy_old)                             \
> > +{                                                                         \
> > +     u32 old_size = state->COUNT;                                         \
>
> what is the change here?
> extra tab at the end of every line?
> I think that adds too much noise to git history.
> I'd rather keep this bit as-is.
>
>

I feel like this whole patchset doesn't add much value and will just
pollute history. I'm just going to abandon it for now.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux