From: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
'Manikishan Ghantasala' <manikishanghantasala@gmail.com>,
Alex Elder <elder@ieee.org>
Cc: Alex Elder <elder@kernel.org>,
"greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org" <greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
"linux-staging@lists.linux.dev" <linux-staging@lists.linux.dev>,
Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH] staging: greybus: fixed the coding style, labels should not be indented.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:45:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e1c36fb4-ab72-0cce-f6fe-3f04125dae28@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <792dd57c0ef8454497e5ae4c4534dea2@AcuMS.aculab.com>
On 6/3/21 4:22 PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Manikishan Ghantasala
>> Sent: 02 June 2021 15:28
>>
>> I agree those are called bit-field member names rather than labels.
>> But the reason I mentioned is because the ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> gave out a warning saying "labels should not be indented".
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion in the name I referred to. So, I think this
>> change is needed as I feel this is not following the coding-style by
>> having indent before the width for bit field member. I went through
>> other places in source code to make sure this is correct, and sent the
>> patch after confirmation.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Manikishan Ghantasala
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 19:13, Alex Elder <elder@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/2/21 8:36 AM, sh4nnu wrote:
>>>> From: Manikishan Ghantasala <manikishanghantasala@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> staging: greybus: gpio.c: Clear coding-style problem
>>>> "labels should not be indented" by removing indentation.
>>>
>>> These are not labels.
>>>
>>> I don't really understand what you're doing here.
>>>
>>> Can you please explain why you think this needs changing?
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Manikishan Ghantasala <manikishanghantasala@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c | 6 +++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
>>>> index 7e6347fe93f9..4661f4a251bd 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
>>>> @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@
>>>> struct gb_gpio_line {
>>>> /* The following has to be an array of line_max entries */
>>>> /* --> make them just a flags field */
>>>> - u8 active: 1,
>>>> - direction: 1, /* 0 = output, 1 = input */
>>>> - value: 1; /* 0 = low, 1 = high */
>>>> + u8 active:1,
>>>> + direction:1, /* 0 = output, 1 = input */
>>>> + value:1; /* 0 = low, 1 = high */
>
> Why are you even using bitfields at all?
> If you cared about the structure size you'd not have a byte-size pad here.
Apparently I committed this, and it was part of the very first
Greybus drivers...
These would be better defined as Booleans; there are others in
the same structure after all. That would have avoided the
checkpatch problem in the first place.
I was probably thinking *a little* about structure size when
defining it this way, but I agree with you, the bit-fields
don't really add value.
> Since I doubt many copies of this structure get allocated the
> (typical) increase in code size for the bitfields will also
> exceed any size saving.
>
> Isn't the kernel style also to repeat the type for every field?
I see that style in many places, but not all. I personally
like it this way--provided it's done in a way that makes
it clear where the integral boundaries are.
-Alex
> David
>
>
>>>> u16 debounce_usec;
>>>>
>>>> u8 irq_type;
>>>>
>>>
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> _______________________________________________
> greybus-dev mailing list
> greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org
> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-03 21:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-02 13:36 [PATCH] staging: greybus: fixed the coding style, labels should not be indented sh4nnu
2021-06-02 13:43 ` Alex Elder
2021-06-02 14:27 ` Manikishan Ghantasala
2021-06-02 14:37 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-02 14:39 ` Manikishan Ghantasala
2021-06-02 17:26 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: Improve the indented label test Joe Perches
2021-06-02 14:38 ` [PATCH] staging: greybus: fixed the coding style, labels should not be indented Alex Elder
2021-06-03 21:22 ` David Laight
2021-06-03 21:45 ` Alex Elder [this message]
2021-06-03 21:48 ` [greybus-dev] " David Laight
2021-06-03 21:55 ` Alex Elder
2021-06-04 8:13 ` David Laight
2021-06-04 8:26 ` Joe Perches
2021-06-04 8:33 ` David Laight
2021-06-04 12:34 ` Alex Elder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e1c36fb4-ab72-0cce-f6fe-3f04125dae28@linaro.org \
--to=elder@linaro.org \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=elder@ieee.org \
--cc=elder@kernel.org \
--cc=greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-staging@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=manikishanghantasala@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).