lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v12 05/18] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations
From
Date
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 17:33:52)
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:57:00PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:08)
> > > + */
> > > +#define KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, condition) \
> > > + KUNIT_TRUE_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, condition)
> >
> > A lot of these macros seem double indented.
>
> In a case you pointed out in the preceding patch, I was just keeping the
> arguments column aligned.
>
> In this case I am just indenting two tabs for a line continuation. I
> thought I found other instances in the kernel that did this early on
> (and that's also what the Linux kernel vim plugin wanted me to do).
> After a couple of spot checks, it seems like one tab for this kind of
> line continuation seems more common. I personally don't feel strongly
> about any particular version. I just want to know now what the correct
> indentation is for macros before I go through and change them all.
>
> I think there are three cases:
>
> #define macro0(param0, param1) \
> a_really_long_macro(...)
>
> In this first case, I use two tabs for the first indent, I think you are
> telling me this should be one tab.

Yes. Should be one.

>
> #define macro1(param0, param1) { \
> statement_in_a_block0; \
> statement_in_a_block1; \
> ... \
> }
>
> In this case, every line is in a block and is indented as it would be in
> a function body. I think you are okay with this, and now that I am
> thinking about it, what I think you are proposing for macro0 will make
> these two cases more consistent.
>
> #define macro2(param0, \
> param1, \
> param2, \
> param3, \
> ..., \
> paramn) ... \
>
> In this last case, the body would be indented as in macro0, or macro1,
> but the parameters passed into the macro are column aligned, consistent
> with one of the acceptable ways of formatting function parameters that
> don't fit on a single line.
>
> In all cases, I put 1 space in between the closing parameter paren and
> the line continuation `\`, if only one `\` is needed. Otherwise, I align
> all the `\s` to the 80th column. Is this okay, or would you prefer that
> I align them all to the 80th column, or something else?
>

This all sounds fine and I'm not nitpicking this style. Just the double
tabs making lines longer than required.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-13 07:03    [W:0.070 / U:16.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site