From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01DB374F for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:22:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jul 2017 03:22:19 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,380,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="109626425" Received: from debian-zgviawfucg.sh.intel.com (HELO debian-ZGViaWFuCg) ([10.67.104.212]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2017 03:22:17 -0700 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:23:21 +0800 From: Tiwei Bie To: "Van Haaren, Harry" Cc: "thomas@monjalon.net" , "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20170719102321.GA6991@debian-ZGViaWFuCg> References: <1500455196-182365-1-git-send-email-tiwei.bie@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] all: refactor coding style X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:22:28 -0000 On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:24:38PM +0800, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Tiwei Bie > > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:07 AM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: thomas@monjalon.net > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] all: refactor coding style > > > > Remove the unwanted spaces before `;' across DPDK source code > > by below one-liner with some minor manual refinements. > > > > find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs sed -i 's/\([^;(]\) \+;/\1;/g' > > > > The fixes for cmdline library are skipped, because it has a > > different coding style. It deserves a separate cleanup if > > necessary. The fixes for drivers' base code are also skipped > > to keep the base code intact. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie > > Hi Tiwei, > > Although the idea and motivation for code-cleanup are good, performing > large cleanup across a code-base is not a good solution. The reason that > these types of cleanups (or even re-formatting the entire codebase) are not > performed often is that it "invalidates" any currently-in-progress patch-sets. > As a result, more work is required from many contributors to rebase useful > features due to across-the-board white-space cleanups. > > Just expressing concern that we need to think carefully about the impacts > of such a patch. > Yeah, I agree. Such patch may cause many conflicts. But this patch is almost generated automatically, that is to say, it's a quick work. And it's more like some fixes (for the bad coding style) rather than silly re-formatting done by `indent'. So I just want to share it with the community, and see the potential feedbacks. Thank you for your comments! :) Best regards, Tiwei Bie