On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:23:07PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > You're (thankfully) not actually exporting anything, so please > don't claim that in the subject. Ah, I'll rename the subject to "mm/hugetlb: Declare hugetlbfs_pagecache_present() non-static". > > > pte_t *huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud); > > +bool hugetlbfs_pagecache_present(struct hstate *h, > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > + unsigned long address); > > Can you just follow the much more readable two tab indent of the > function above? > > > -static bool hugetlbfs_pagecache_present(struct hstate *h, > > - struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address) > > +bool hugetlbfs_pagecache_present(struct hstate *h, > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address) > > Same here. The new indentation not only is less readable but also > creates a pointlessly overlong line. I can easily follow what you suggest for this single patch, but afaict the kernel doesn't document that in the style guide. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html#functions And the reality is at least across mm codes it's used in a mixture of ways, even more than these two major forms of indentations. To be explicit, I think 2-tab is Vim's default, while this patch follows Emacs's c-mode default. It means if this patch indents wrongly, probably 99% of Emacs users are doomed. :( Before we have a clear and thorough rule over this, shall we just allow either sane indent to still be accepted? Or maybe there's some rule that I have missed? Personally I actually prefer Emacs's indentations to align with left bracket, but that's just subjective so doesn't count. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
