On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 16:27 +0530, Srikrishan Malik wrote:
> 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.
[]
> > 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.
I think eliminating checkpatch identified issues should
not be the primary goal but a secondary one to the
overall goal of code style uniformity.
Julia Lawall and Himangi Saraogi from coccinelle fame
have created a "detypedef" script that is useful for
structs, perhaps you could extend it for unions and
run it over this lustre code.
For instance:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/9/104
> 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?
Up to you.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
