From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:11:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] video/matrox: Checkpatch cleanups for matroxfb_crtc2.c Message-Id: <20100118221146.5d81fc0e@hyperion.delvare> List-Id: References: <201001181934.49519.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <1263842269.26846.122.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <201001182027.29805.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <1263844770.26846.134.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> In-Reply-To: <1263844770.26846.134.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Joe Perches Cc: Peter =?UTF-8?B?SMO8d2U=?= , Petr Vandrovec , Andrew Morton , Krzysztof Helt , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:59:30 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:27 +0100, Peter H=C3=BCwe wrote: > > the reason behind this change was that spaces and tabs were mixed for=20 > > indention.=20 >=20 > Checkpatch isn't gospel and isn't always right. >=20 > There should be room for taste preference here > and I think whatever Petr V's is should prevail. >=20 > > How about this indention? Would this be better? >=20 > Well, I don't think so, but others will have different opinions. I don't see it as an improvement either. Was checkpatch.pl really complaining about the alignment? Tabs followed by less than 8 spaces is acceptable and fairly common AFAICT, I can't remember the script yelling at me when I do it. --=20 Jean Delvare