On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:35:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 19:01 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:01:36PM +0530, Srikrishan Malik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:18:13PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > That looks silly before and after. Everything is indented in a funny
> > > > way.
> > >
> > > Is this better:
> > >
> > > static const ldlm_policy_data_t lookup_policy = {
> > > .l_inodebits = { MDS_INODELOCK_LOOKUP }
> > > };
> > >
> >
> > That is indented too far.
> >
> > Honestly, I think it looks best on one line but in terms of real life we
> > can't ignore checkpatch warnings because eventually someone else will
> > try to "fix" it to not be on one line.
> >
> > This function has the silly thing where the types are in one column and
> > the variables are in another. But then over time inevitably we add more
> > variables and nothing is lined up any more.
> >
> > I think it's best to move this const variable block to the very front of
> > the list.
> >
> > req doesn't need to be initialized.
> >
> > rc is normally the last variable declared.
> >
> > lvb_type should be initialized to LVB_T_NONE instead of zero.
> >
> > __u64 should be u64.
> >
> > All those changes could be done as one patch titled, "cleanup variable
> > declarations in mdc_enqueue()". There may be other cleanups you could
> > do as well. Look hard.
>
> I think it looks odd to mix named and unnamed
> initializers for the typedef and its members.
>
> ldlm_policy_data_t is a union and it could be
> explicit instead of a typedef.
>
> Perhaps:
> static const union ldlm_policy_data lookup_policy = {
> .l_inodebits = {
> .bits = MDS_INODELOCK_LOOKUP,
> },
> };
>
> or maybe use another DECLARE_<foo> macro indirection.
>
This patch set is aimed at removing checkpatch issues from files in
lustre/lustre/mdc.
Is it ok if I just fix those in this set and post another patch set
to take care of other issues identified in review?
- removing typedef for ldlm_policy_data_t will touch many other
files/dirs which were not initially targeted for this patch set.
- There can be a separate patch to remove __u64.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
