Re: [PATCH 60g v1 0/5] Infrastructure for 60g (802.11ad)

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Sun, 2012-07-01 at 19:28 +0300, Vladimir Kondratiev wrote:
> On Sunday, July 01, 2012 01:23:28 PM Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Please fix indentation better :-)
> I am confused a bit. What is "proper" identation for this case?
> Immediately following code idents with 4 spaces:
> 
>                 if (cfg80211_disable_40mhz_24ghz &&
>                     band == IEEE80211_BAND_2GHZ &&
>                     sband->ht_cap.ht_supported) {
>                         sband->ht_cap.cap &= ~IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SUP_WIDTH_20_40;
>                         sband->ht_cap.cap &= ~IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SGI_40;
>                 }

Yes.

> This is what I did initially, to comply with surrounding code style.
> Fragment in question is:
> 
> 		if (WARN_ON((band != IEEE80211_BAND_60GHZ) &&
> 				!sband->n_bitrates))
> 			return -EINVAL;
> 
> 
> Should I ident line containing
> !sband->n_bitrates))
> with:
>  - 4 spaces as next code fragment,
>  - one tab (same level as 'return')
>  - 2 tabs (one level more then 'return')
>  - other (what?)

Align subsequent line to character after parenthesis depth.
Maximally fill with tabs, use 0 to 7 spaces to indent
		   1       23                            2
                   v       vv                            v
		if (WARN_ON((band != IEEE80211_BAND_60GHZ) &&
			    !sband->n_bitrates))

There is an unnecessary parenthesis here around the first
test and this is perhaps better written as:

		if (WARN_ON(band != IEEE80211_BAND_60GHZ &&
			    !sband->n_bitrates))

You could also use "scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict" and
it should tell you.