Re: [PATCH v12 05/18] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations

Brendan Higgins
2019-08-13T05:04:44Z

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:02 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 17:33:52)
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:57:00PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:08)
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, condition) \
> > > > + KUNIT_TRUE_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, condition)
> > >
> > > A lot of these macros seem double indented.
> >
> > In a case you pointed out in the preceding patch, I was just keeping the
> > arguments column aligned.
> >
> > In this case I am just indenting two tabs for a line continuation. I
> > thought I found other instances in the kernel that did this early on
> > (and that's also what the Linux kernel vim plugin wanted me to do).
> > After a couple of spot checks, it seems like one tab for this kind of
> > line continuation seems more common. I personally don't feel strongly
> > about any particular version. I just want to know now what the correct
> > indentation is for macros before I go through and change them all.
> >
> > I think there are three cases:
> >
> > #define macro0(param0, param1) \
> > a_really_long_macro(...)
> >
> > In this first case, I use two tabs for the first indent, I think you are
> > telling me this should be one tab.
>
> Yes. Should be one.
>
> >
> > #define macro1(param0, param1) { \
> > statement_in_a_block0; \
> > statement_in_a_block1; \
> > ... \
> > }
> >
> > In this case, every line is in a block and is indented as it would be in
> > a function body. I think you are okay with this, and now that I am
> > thinking about it, what I think you are proposing for macro0 will make
> > these two cases more consistent.
> >
> > #define macro2(param0, \
> > param1, \
> > param2, \
> > param3, \
> > ..., \
> > paramn) ... \
> >
> > In this last case, the body would be indented as in macro0, or macro1,
> > but the parameters passed into the macro are column aligned, consistent
> > with one of the acceptable ways of formatting function parameters that
> > don't fit on a single line.
> >
> > In all cases, I put 1 space in between the closing parameter paren and
> > the line continuation `\`, if only one `\` is needed. Otherwise, I align
> > all the `\s` to the 80th column. Is this okay, or would you prefer that
> > I align them all to the 80th column, or something else?
> >
>
> This all sounds fine and I'm not nitpicking this style. Just the double
> tabs making lines longer than required.

Sounds good. Will do.