From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB263C49ED6 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ml01.01.org (ml01.01.org [198.145.21.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C712084D for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="HCaGG62/" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 90C712084D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=oracle.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98F8202BCBB7; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=156.151.31.86; helo=userp2130.oracle.com; envelope-from=dan.carpenter@oracle.com; receiver=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org Received: from userp2130.oracle.com (userp2130.oracle.com [156.151.31.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D54F21962301 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8BIhVqx057041; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:43:42 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2019-08-05; bh=PpbjP/K7FS/mhoPoFUIAdpkmq3dsAewLE9s1QyDDJa0=; b=HCaGG62/OUogK5kDUJX8eKcIBNc4qkq3JHV4gsLrMxOSiF7DUUB1GD2yojxzvJSfgdUg IQYJJrnn7v/KN1sxGkSUaFj166y2WV1bnFPxNoHoPNPtTvY72YOdyOUs6D6Tbe3PUnID 56xXRSPU2lbOT4UyD0y7EEFzUX4M06yq9XROHZbGJIOHDd7NZLSPvq8PLba/DGHnpBlT +UAk/glklN7aPmijNmla+bbMPeBYI6Ux/Awt8ZVLTyjqM3vzdA8glvG9eSlMZcih8q5l PDQrddNfimBTaovRvWH/Xk+vm+SnXUFSuTCUzRSHc37abpQsn2qIPA2L05rNs8Jb0Jqp ag== Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2uw1m943vv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:43:42 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8BIhXnt024817; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:43:42 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2uxj893hsy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:43:41 +0000 Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x8BIhdlD029626; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:43:40 GMT Received: from kadam (/41.57.98.10) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:43:39 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:43:33 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: Maintainer Entry Profile Message-ID: <20190911184332.GL20699@kadam> References: <156821692280.2951081.18036584954940423225.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <156821693963.2951081.11214256396118531359.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <156821693963.2951081.11214256396118531359.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9377 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909110171 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9377 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909110171 X-BeenThere: linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Linux-nvdimm developer list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:48:59AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > +Coding Style Addendum > +--------------------- > +libnvdimm expects multi-line statements to be double indented. I.e. > + > + if (x... > + && ...y) { That looks horrible and it causes a checkpatch warning. :( Why not do it the same way that everyone else does it. if (blah_blah_x && <-- && has to be on the first line for checkpatch blah_blah_y) { <-- [tab][space][space][space][space]blah Now all the conditions are aligned visually which makes it readable. They aren't aligned with the indent block so it's easy to tell the inside from the if condition. I kind of hate all this extra documentation because now everyone thinks they can invent new hoops to jump through. Speaking of hoops, the BPF documentation says that you have to figure out which tree a patch applies to instead of just working against linux-next. Is there an automated way to do that? I looked through my inbox and there are a bunch of patches marked as going through the bpf-next tree but about half were marked incorrectly so it looks like everyone who tries to tag their patches is going to do it badly anyway. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm