Eric Blake, on Thu 11 Feb 2016 10:56:30 -0700, wrote: > On 02/10/2016 02:20 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Thomas Huth, on Wed 10 Feb 2016 09:42:04 +0100, wrote: > >> On 08.02.2016 11:28, Samuel Thibault wrote: > >>> Signed-off-by: Guillaume Subiron <maet...@subiron.org> > >>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org> > >>> --- > >>> slirp/tcp_input.c | 99 > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- > >>> slirp/tcp_output.c | 29 ++++++++-------- > >>> slirp/tcp_subr.c | 50 +++++++++++++-------------- > >>> 3 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-) > >> > >> Not sure, it's just an idea, but maybe it would even make sense to > >> re-indent the whole files in the QEMU coding style now? I mean, indent > >> with 4 spaces instead of tabs? > > > > I'm fine with doing it. Maintainers, what do you think? > > If done as part of the series, it's probably okay to do it as a > pre-requisite patch.
Well, it'd rather be a post-requisite, since the patch series needs to reindent the files quite a bit (see above: almost two hundred lines reindented. > Don't mix it in with actual code changes, Sure. > and we don't do whole-sale reindenting except as part of a larger > series (because 'git blame' will point to whoever did the reindenting > instead of the original code, which doesn't make sense when > reindenting is done in isolation). Yep, I agree, that's why I prefer to ask. I'm here putting the number of lines reindented by my patch vs the total number of lines. A complete reindent would probably need to modify basically all lines of the files. slirp/tcp_input.c 99/1496 slirp/tcp_output.c 29/493 slirp/tcp_subr.c 50/926 It seems quite small in the end, perhaps we shouldn't reindent everything actually. Samuel
