Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH] staging: greybus: fixed the coding style, labels should not be indented.

[Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>]

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
>