Re: [PATCH] jffs2 whitespace

Jörn Engel
2005-09-26T17:29:02Z

On Mon, 26 September 2005 11:17:53 -0600, Peter Grayson wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 13:01 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 September 2005 13:46:04 +0400, Artem B. Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > Jörn Engel wrote:
> > > >Because we want things like ebh, summary, xattr, etc.? If we accept
> > > >this patch, it makes life a bit worse for people who write the stuff
> > > >we want. It may be the straw that makes them go away and never come
> > > >back.
>
> I agree that other patches are more important than code formatting.
> However, we may also enable more people to contribute to jffs2 if the
> code is as readable/understandable as possible. I want to help make a
> small, but tangible step in that direction.

Thank you for that effort.

> > Imo, the costs outweigh the benefit. [ Which doesn't mean that I
> > question the benefit. It's just not big enough. ]
>
> Since there appears to be at least some benefit, maybe we can do this in
> easy to digest pieces. I have made another patch just against the files
> concerning compression in jffs2. These files had a lot of problems and I
> do not believe they conflict with any of the main outstanding patches
> (ebh, xattr, centsum).

That patch I would gladly take. Someone should quickly review it for
correctness (not me, sorry :-P).
The easiest way for review, I guess, would be to compile before and
after your patch. If the binaries are identical (module timestamps,
so take objdump -D output or such), nothing dangerous slipped in.

And yes, for compression the benefits greatly outweigh the costs.
Quite an improvement.

Jörn

--
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot
of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-- Douglas Adams