Re: Clarification for source code formatting around jump labels

[SF Markus Elfring]

>> I am just curious on how much further software development "fun" the recent update
>> by a topic like "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" will trigger.
> 
> I don't want to drag this thread onwards for (way) too long, but clearly "it is
> advised to indent labels with a single space (not tab)" (from diff in above commit)

How do you think about the reason (which you omitted from your quotation) for this advice?

“…,
so that "diff -p" does not confuse labels with functions.
…”


> doesn't really reflect the majority of kernel practice we have in-tree today and
> actually rather adds more confusion than any clarification whatsoever:
> 
>   $ git grep -n "^\ [a-z_]*:" -- '*.[ch]' | wc -l
>   4919
>   $ git grep -n "^[a-z_]*:" -- '*.[ch]' | wc -l
>   54686

So there is a mixture already.


> A CodingStyle document should document what's regarded as a general consensus of
> kernel coding practices, and thus should represent the /majority/ of coding style,
> which (if I didn't screw up my git-grep line completely)

1. Is the used character class specification complete in the shown regular expression?

2. I guess that you should use the regex operator "plus" (instead of the asterisk).

3. Would you like to try another source code analysis out which can be a bit safer
   with the usage of the semantic patch language?


> above 9% does not really reflect at all.

How tolerant are you for using an extra space character before the identifier for
a jump label?


> So, new folks starting with kernel hacking reading this are rather misguided,
> and code-wise it just adds up to have more inconsistencies from new patches,
> or worse, have noisy patches (like this one) flying around that try to
> brute-force everything into this advice.

In which ways would you prefer that the style specifications should be
clarified further?

Where should source code become more consistent?

Regards,
Markus