Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] axis-fifo: cleanup space issues with fops struct

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 12:31:11AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 05:21:00PM +0530, Prathu Baronia wrote:
> > Add required spaces for proper formatting of fops members for better
> > readability.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Prathu Baronia <prathubaronia2011@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c b/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
> > index d71bdc6dd961..59e962467a3d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
> > @@ -716,11 +716,11 @@ static int axis_fifo_close(struct inode *inod, struct file *f)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static const struct file_operations fops = {
> > -	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > -	.open = axis_fifo_open,
> > +	.owner   = THIS_MODULE,
> > +	.open    = axis_fifo_open,
> >  	.release = axis_fifo_close,
> > -	.read = axis_fifo_read,
> > -	.write = axis_fifo_write
> > +	.read    = axis_fifo_read,
> > +	.write   = axis_fifo_write
> 
> Note this is only subjectively better. IMHO with just a single space
> this is perfectly readable. Aligning the = might look nice, but it's
> also annoying at times. When you add another member (e.g.
> .iterate_shared) you either add a line that doesn't match all others, or
> you have to touch all other lines of that struct which (objectively?)
> hurts readability of that patch. Also for generated patches this kind of
> alignment yields extra work. (See for example
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230525205840.734432-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de/
> which required semi-manual fixup to keep the alignment after coccinelle
> generated the patch.)
> 
> If you still think this is a good idea, I'd ask you to stick to one
> style for the whole file. e.g. axis_fifo_driver uses inconsistent
> and different indention.

I agree, there is no "requirement" that these fields are aligned at all,
so I would stick to the real fixes that are needed for this code to be
able to be moved out of staging instead.

thanks,

greg k-h