Re: [PATCH] net/nfp: add support of UDP fragmentation offload

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>]

On 2/19/2024 10:26 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:05:35AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote:
>>> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org]
>>> Sent: Saturday, 17 February 2024 19.11
>>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:02:30 +0100
>>> Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not formally... it follows the official DPDK Coding Style [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1]:
>>> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#general
>>>>
>>>>> Should be:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	if ((ol_flags & RTE_MBUF_F_TX_TCP_SEG) == 0 &&
>>>>> 	    (ol_flags & RTE_MBUF_F_TX_UDP_SEG) == 0)
>>>>> 		goto clean_txd;
>>>>
>>>> This indentation style is mentioned as an alternative in the guide.
>>> But the example in the guide also uses two tabs for a similar long
>>> comparison.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I also prefer the style suggested by Stephen, so we might
>>> want to update the Coding Style. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> The two tabs is an Intel thing, and I prefer the kernel, line up the
>>> conditional style.
>>
>> I prefer 4 space indentation, which is sufficient to notice the indentation. 8 spaces seems overkill to me, and quickly makes the lines too long.
>> With the editor configured to show tab as 4 spaces, the kernel alignment style ends up with the same indentation for the condition and the code block:
>>
>> if (a &&
>>     b)
>>     ctr++;
>>
>> Whereas with the "tab as 4 spaces" editor configuration, the double indentation style clearly separates the continued condition from code block:
>>
>> if (a &&
>>         b)
>>     ctr++;
>>
> 
> These two above are the main reasons I much prefer the double indent on
> continuation, though I'd also add a third one: it means we don't have a mix
> of tabs and spaces for indentation.
> 
> However, as stated already indent can be a matter of taste, and there will
> be some disagreement about it. The existing coding standards document what
> was done in the code base when they were written, and I don't think we
> should look to change them. It's a bit annoying having 2 standards for
> continuation rather than 1, but it's not exactly a free-for-all, and it's
> not something that applies to every line, only to a small subset.
> 

++1