From: Richard Hartmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:10:47 +0100 Message-ID: <2d460de71002190210qb9d5685n2fca0e7eff011b04@mail.gmail.com> References: <1266538925-3245-1-git-send-email-richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Benjamin Gilbert , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com ([209.85.218.209]:58976 "EHLO mail-bw0-f209.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752839Ab0BSKKt (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:10:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 02:48, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Why did you replaced a tab with spaces here?? The first tab is indentation, displaying the logical nesting level. The second tab including the whitespaces after it was formatting. Although the official tab width in the linux kernel is 8 chars, not all code adheres to this rule. Maintaining a clear separation between indentation and formatting, i.e. using tabs as initially intended, helps to keep everyone happy, no matter what tab width they use. If this change is actually controversial, I have no problem removing this part from the patch. However, it is my _strong_ feeling, that it is beneficial to keep it. If there is any wider interest in this topic, I am more than willing to take this up on the main list in a separate thread. Unless it has already been discussed, of course. Thanks for looking at the patch, Richard