On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 10:42 +0100, Bean Huo wrote: > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 17:01 +0800, Stanley Chu wrote: > > > + bool wb_buf_flush_enabled; > > > + u8 wb_dedicated_lu; > > > + u8 b_wb_buffer_type; > > > + u32 d_wb_alloc_units; > > > + > > > + bool b_rpm_dev_flush_capable; > > > + u8 b_presrv_uspc_en; > > > > Perhaps we could unify the style of these WB related stuff to wb_* ? > > yes, agree. I will change them. > > > > > Besides, I am not sure if using tab instead space between the type > > and > > name in this struct is a good idea. > > > using space, in addition single space, type and parameter names are > mixed. > > > use space: > > /* UFS WB related flags */ > bool wb_enabled; > bool wb_buf_flush_enabled; > u8 > wb_dedicated_lu; > u8 b_wb_buffer_type; > u32 d_wb_alloc_units; > > use table: > > /* UFS WB related flags */ > bool wb_enabled; > bool wb_buf_flush_enabled; > u8 wb_dedicated_lu; > u8 b_wb_buffer_type; > u32 d_wb_alloc_units; > > I think, the result is very clear comparing above two examples. yes, > there is no explicit stipulation that we must use space or tab. Both > styles exist in Linux. Maybe this is just matter of personal interest. Hi Bean, Yes, I got your point. I am fine with this style change, but just wonder if it would be better to change all structures in all ufs headers (or at least all structures in ufs.h) in the same time to make the style unified in the same file? Besides, we may need other reviewer's comments for the new style. Thanks, Stanley Chu > > > Bean > > > Thanks, > > Stanley Chu >
