Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 04 Sep 2016 11:56:58 +0200 | From | Daniel Borkmann <> | Subject | Re: sparc: bpf_jit: Rename jump labels in bpf_jit_compile() |
| |
On 09/04/2016 09:20 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/Documentation/CodingStyle?id=865a1caa4b6b886babdd9d67e7c3608be4567a51
[ + Jonathan for above commit in linux-next ]
>> You seem to lack understanding of the difference between absolute >> requirements and "advice". >> >> As Sparc maintainer I can choose to not take this "advice", >> and I so choose to do so. > > Your conclusion can be fine in principle. > > 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) 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
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) above 9% does not really reflect at all. 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.
| |