Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS:
 Maintainer Entry Profile
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
References: <156821692280.2951081.18036584954940423225.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <156821693963.2951081.11214256396118531359.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20190911184332.GL20699@kadam>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <9132e214-9b57-07dc-7ee2-f6bc52e960c5@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:11:29 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190911184332.GL20699@kadam>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9/11/19 12:43 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:48:59AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> +Coding Style Addendum
>> +---------------------
>> +libnvdimm expects multi-line statements to be double indented. I.e.
>> +
>> +        if (x...
>> +                        && ...y) {
> 
> That looks horrible and it causes a checkpatch warning.  :(  Why not
> do it the same way that everyone else does it.
> 
> 	if (blah_blah_x && <-- && has to be on the first line for checkpatch
> 	    blah_blah_y) { <-- [tab][space][space][space][space]blah
> 
> Now all the conditions are aligned visually which makes it readable.
> They aren't aligned with the indent block so it's easy to tell the
> inside from the if condition.
> 
> I kind of hate all this extra documentation because now everyone thinks
> they can invent new hoops to jump through.

FWIW, I completely agree with Dan (Carpenter) here. I absolutely
dislike having these kinds of files, and with subsystems imposing weird
restrictions on style (like the quoted example, yuck).

Additionally, it would seem saner to standardize rules around when
code is expected to hit the maintainers hands for kernel releases. Both
yours and Martins deals with that, there really shouldn't be the need
to have this specified in detail per sub-system.

-- 
Jens Axboe