From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: coding style: use linux kernel style
 for indentation
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:51:57 +0000
Message-ID: <cbcc161b-f1ba-079d-282d-b64f3a12ce7f@intel.com>
References: <1452671929-29617-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <20160113150708.GD7756@bricha3-MOBL3> <20160113084959.797beea5@xeon-e3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, DPDK <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
 Yuanhan Liu <yliu@fridaylinux.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD58B1B1D4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:52:00 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <20160113084959.797beea5@xeon-e3>
Content-Language: en-US
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 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.

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