>> I am just curious on how much further software development "fun" the recent >> update >> by a topic like "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" will trigger. > > I don't want to drag this thread onwards for (way) too long, but clearly "it > is > advised to indent labels with a single space (not tab)" (from diff in above > commit)
How do you think about the reason (which you omitted from your quotation) for this advice? “…, so that "diff -p" does not confuse labels with functions. …” > doesn't really reflect the majority of kernel practice we have in-tree today > and > actually rather adds more confusion than any clarification whatsoever: > > $ git grep -n "^\ [a-z_]*:" -- '*.[ch]' | wc -l > 4919 > $ git grep -n "^[a-z_]*:" -- '*.[ch]' | wc -l > 54686 So there is a mixture already. > A CodingStyle document should document what's regarded as a general consensus > of > kernel coding practices, and thus should represent the /majority/ of coding > style, > which (if I didn't screw up my git-grep line completely) 1. Is the used character class specification complete in the shown regular expression? 2. I guess that you should use the regex operator "plus" (instead of the asterisk). 3. Would you like to try another source code analysis out which can be a bit safer with the usage of the semantic patch language? > above 9% does not really reflect at all. How tolerant are you for using an extra space character before the identifier for a jump label? > So, new folks starting with kernel hacking reading this are rather misguided, > and code-wise it just adds up to have more inconsistencies from new patches, > or worse, have noisy patches (like this one) flying around that try to > brute-force everything into this advice. In which ways would you prefer that the style specifications should be clarified further? Where should source code become more consistent? Regards, Markus
