Re: [PATCH 2/5] secmark: make secmark object handling generic

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

On 12/10/10 19:45, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:24 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>> On 12/10/10 18:26, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 2010-10-12 17:40, Eric Paris wrote:
> 
>>>> static struct xt_target secmark_tg_reg __read_mostly = {
>>>> -	.name       = "SECMARK",
>>>> -	.revision   = 0,
>>>> -	.family     = NFPROTO_UNSPEC,
>>>> -	.checkentry = secmark_tg_check,
>>>> -	.destroy    = secmark_tg_destroy,
>>>> -	.target     = secmark_tg,
>>>> -	.targetsize = sizeof(struct xt_secmark_target_info),
>>>> -	.me         = THIS_MODULE,
>>>> +	.name		= "SECMARK",
>>>> +	.revision	= 0,
>>>> +	.family		= NFPROTO_UNSPEC,
>>>> +	.checkentry	= secmark_tg_check,
>>>> +	.destroy	= secmark_tg_destroy,
>>>> +	.target		= secmark_tg,
>>>> +	.targetsize	= sizeof(struct xt_secmark_target_info),
>>>> +	.me		= THIS_MODULE,
>>>> };
>>
>> I think that we don't need that extra tab above.
> 
> Are you saying that you prefer lots of spaces to get alignment rather
> than the single tab?  I see examples of both in other struct xt_target
> definitions.  I didn't make any syntax changes to this struct, so my
> guess is that I made this change when I discovered eight spaces in a row
> as I was checking the file for tab->space screw-ups before submission.
> Since this is a whitespace change in the middle of a real patch I guess
> I can drop the hunk entirely if that's what you are asking for....

I think that this is a cleanup that should go into a different patch,
that's all.