From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD58B1B1D4 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:52:00 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Feb 2018 04:51:59 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,507,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="26921770" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.35]) ([10.237.220.35]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2018 04:51:58 -0800 To: Stephen Hemminger , Yuanhan Liu References: <1452671929-29617-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <20160113150708.GD7756@bricha3-MOBL3> <20160113084959.797beea5@xeon-e3> From: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Bruce Richardson , DPDK , Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:51:57 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160113084959.797beea5@xeon-e3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: coding style: use linux kernel style for indentation 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: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:52:01 -0000 On 1/13/2016 4:49 PM, stephen at networkplumber.org (Stephen Hemminger) wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:07:08 +0000 > Bruce Richardson wrote: > >> So, while the two-tab indent may look "a bit weird" it does solve the two issues >> above. I believe practical benefits should override initial impressions. [It took >> me a while to get used to also, but now I very much like it as a style.] > > I don't think that deviating from kernel style for this case is justified. This is very old patch still sitting in patchwork, re-visiting it mainly to be able to clean the patchwork. This is a syntax change request and although I have my personal preferences I would be OK with whatever decided. Currently there is already a decided syntax, changing it after this point will cause either mixed usage or a big syntax cleanup patch. I think both are not good. I am for continue whatever documented in current DPDK coding style doc, hence NAK from my side. Thanks, ferruh