From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C40E7F61 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:31:05 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:31:04 -0500 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/11] xfs: Do some whitespace cleanup in the data structure xfs_quotainfo Message-ID: <20130628183104.GY20932@sgi.com> References: <1372371914-11370-1-git-send-email-sekharan@us.ibm.com> <1372371914-11370-6-git-send-email-sekharan@us.ibm.com> <20130628163058.GW20932@sgi.com> <1372443273.8341.207.camel@chandra-dt.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1372443273.8341.207.camel@chandra-dt.ibm.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Chandra Seetharaman Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hey Chandra, On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:14:33PM -0500, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:30 -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hey Chandra, > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:25:08PM -0500, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > In preparation for combined pquota/gquota support, do some > > > whitespace cleanups. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman > > > > Wow. Putting this in a patch by itself really puts it into stark > > relief. > > > > If we pull this in we're representing that some tabs and the alignment > > of the fields is more valuable than the comments? I'm fairly certain I > > > If you put it that way, it does sound not correct, and I would agree > with you too :). > > But, IMO, it has to be more subjective than that. The comments removed, > IMO, add no additional value (the field name conveys the same > information). You can see that I left alone the comments that provide > some value. I did notice that you kept some of the comments. However, I am finding some of the removed ones to be useful too. I think if you try to look at this structure with the eyes of a newbie the comments do help you. e.g. di_btimelimit doesn't carry much meaning for me out of context, and the comment is helping me, at least. Not everyone is quite so moronic as me, though. ;) > > don't agree that's the case... > > > > I'm sorry for your trouble, but I think I should pass on this one. Do > > you agree? > > > > In effect, the code does look better (than I found it :) at the cost of > removal of redundant comments. > > If you still don't want to include, I would accept your decision. Thanks. I really would prefer to keep them. FWIW, the rest of your patch set doesn't appear to be adversely affected by doing so. Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs