On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 14:37 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:04:07 -0700 Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > > > > Le Friday 10 July 2015 __ 04:51 -0700, Joe Perches a __crit : > > > > On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 13:47 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > > If indent is not found, bail out immediately instead of spitting > > > > > random shell script error messages. > > > > > > > > OK, but can't we just delete Lindent instead? > > > > > > Because...? > > > > It's just not very useful in today's development space. > > I've very occasionally used Lindent. It's useful if the input is an > utter mess. You feed it through Lindent as a first pass then get in and > do the remainder by hand. > > It can be less work than doing the whole conversion by hand.
That's true, it can be, but I think Lindent mostly doesn't work particularly well for reviewing and it can require a lot more rework. My biggest complaint about Lindent is that it can produce _awful_ looking code when it has to wrap longish lines. I think that generally, checkpatch --fix-inplace works better and it can work in discrete steps. I submitted a little script a while back that does most of what Lindent does. https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/11/794 uncrustify also kinda works without the line wrapping nuttiness. It's not very good about using Linux's pointer location style. http://uncrustify.sourceforge.net/ clang-format works reasonably well. It can respect existing line wrapping. http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
