From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yliu@fridaylinux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: coding style: use linux kernel style
 for indentation
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 21:12:16 +0800
Message-ID: <20180213131216.GH2156@yliu-mob>
References: <1452671929-29617-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <20160113150708.GD7756@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <20160113084959.797beea5@xeon-e3>
 <cbcc161b-f1ba-079d-282d-b64f3a12ce7f@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, DPDK <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA931B290
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:12:21 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cbcc161b-f1ba-079d-282d-b64f3a12ce7f@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:51:57PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 4:49 PM, stephen at networkplumber.org (Stephen Hemminger) wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:07:08 +0000
> > Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> So, while the two-tab indent may look "a bit weird" it does solve the two issues
> >> above. I believe practical benefits should override initial impressions. [It took
> >> me a while to get used to also, but now I very much like it as a style.]
> > 
> > I don't think that deviating from kernel style for this case is justified.
> 
> This is very old patch still sitting in patchwork, re-visiting it mainly to be
> able to clean the patchwork.

Just drop it, there is no reason to revisit it.

	--yliu
> 
> This is a syntax change request and although I have my personal preferences I
> would be OK with whatever decided.
> 
> Currently there is already a decided syntax, changing it after this point will
> cause either mixed usage or a big syntax cleanup patch. I think both are not good.
> 
> I am for continue whatever documented in current DPDK coding style doc, hence
> NAK from my side.
> 
> Thanks,
> ferruh