Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Clarification for source code formatting around jump labels | From | SF Markus Elfring <> | Date | Sun, 4 Sep 2016 15:50:25 +0200 |
| |
>> I am just curious on how much further software development "fun" the recent update >> by a topic like "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" will trigger. > > I don't want to drag this thread onwards for (way) too long, but clearly "it is > advised to indent labels with a single space (not tab)" (from diff in above commit)
How do you think about the reason (which you omitted from your quotation) for this advice?
“…, so that "diff -p" does not confuse labels with functions. …”
> doesn't really reflect the majority of kernel practice we have in-tree today and > actually rather adds more confusion than any clarification whatsoever: > > $ git grep -n "^\ [a-z_]*:" -- '*.[ch]' | wc -l > 4919 > $ git grep -n "^[a-z_]*:" -- '*.[ch]' | wc -l > 54686
So there is a mixture already.
> A CodingStyle document should document what's regarded as a general consensus of > kernel coding practices, and thus should represent the /majority/ of coding style, > which (if I didn't screw up my git-grep line completely)
1. Is the used character class specification complete in the shown regular expression?
2. I guess that you should use the regex operator "plus" (instead of the asterisk).
3. Would you like to try another source code analysis out which can be a bit safer with the usage of the semantic patch language?
> above 9% does not really reflect at all.
How tolerant are you for using an extra space character before the identifier for a jump label?
> So, new folks starting with kernel hacking reading this are rather misguided, > and code-wise it just adds up to have more inconsistencies from new patches, > or worse, have noisy patches (like this one) flying around that try to > brute-force everything into this advice.
In which ways would you prefer that the style specifications should be clarified further?
Where should source code become more consistent?
Regards, Markus
| |