From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758016Ab0JLSPn (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:15:43 -0400 Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:44248 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757967Ab0JLSPm (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:15:42 -0400 Message-ID: <4CB4A5CA.7050300@netfilter.org> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:15:38 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100619 Icedove/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Paris CC: Jan Engelhardt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org, paul.moore@hp.com, jmorris@namei.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, mr.dash.four@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] secmark: make secmark object handling generic References: <20101012154008.26943.44399.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <20101012154015.26943.18385.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <4CB499E3.5030305@netfilter.org> <1286905533.2608.21.camel@dhcp235-107.rdu.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1286905533.2608.21.camel@dhcp235-107.rdu.redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/10/10 19:45, Eric Paris wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:24 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> On 12/10/10 18:26, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> On Tuesday 2010-10-12 17:40, Eric Paris wrote: > >>>> static struct xt_target secmark_tg_reg __read_mostly = { >>>> - .name = "SECMARK", >>>> - .revision = 0, >>>> - .family = NFPROTO_UNSPEC, >>>> - .checkentry = secmark_tg_check, >>>> - .destroy = secmark_tg_destroy, >>>> - .target = secmark_tg, >>>> - .targetsize = sizeof(struct xt_secmark_target_info), >>>> - .me = THIS_MODULE, >>>> + .name = "SECMARK", >>>> + .revision = 0, >>>> + .family = NFPROTO_UNSPEC, >>>> + .checkentry = secmark_tg_check, >>>> + .destroy = secmark_tg_destroy, >>>> + .target = secmark_tg, >>>> + .targetsize = sizeof(struct xt_secmark_target_info), >>>> + .me = THIS_MODULE, >>>> }; >> >> I think that we don't need that extra tab above. > > Are you saying that you prefer lots of spaces to get alignment rather > than the single tab? I see examples of both in other struct xt_target > definitions. I didn't make any syntax changes to this struct, so my > guess is that I made this change when I discovered eight spaces in a row > as I was checking the file for tab->space screw-ups before submission. > Since this is a whitespace change in the middle of a real patch I guess > I can drop the hunk entirely if that's what you are asking for.... I think that this is a cleanup that should go into a different patch, that's all.