Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] kni: allow configuring the kni thread granularity

[Tudor Cornea <tudor.cornea@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 17:53, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
wrote:

> On Tue,  2 Nov 2021 17:51:13 +0200
> Tudor Cornea <tudor.cornea@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +#ifdef RTE_KNI_PREEMPT_DEFAULT
> > +module_param(min_scheduling_interval, long, 0644);
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(min_scheduling_interval,
> > +"Kni thread min scheduling interval (default=100 microseconds):\n"
> > +"\t\t"
> > +);
>
> Why the non-standard newline's and tab's?
> Please try to make KNI look like other kernel code.
>

Hi Stephen,

I tried to base the description of the new parameters on an existing
parameter implemented for the rte_kni module - carrier.

module_param(carrier, charp, 0644);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(carrier,
"Default carrier state for KNI interface (default=off):\n"
"\t\toff   Interfaces will be created with carrier state set to off.\n"
"\t\ton    Interfaces will be created with carrier state set to on.\n"
"\t\t"
);

I thought about keeping the compatibility in terms of coding style with the
existing Kni module parameters.
Upon browsing the Linux tree, I realise it might not be standard (
checkpatch.pl , interestingly didn't seem to complain about the patch)

I also realise now, that I missed two tabs at the beginning of the params
description.
Should I add the missing tabs, so that the new parameters that I intend to
add through this patch are similar in style to the existing ones, or should
I remove the newlines and tabs altogether, when specifying the description
for min_scheduling_interval and max_scheduling_interval ?

Thanks,
Tudor