Re: [PATCH 03/47] block-rbd: Adjust the position of a jump label in rbd_header_from_disk()

[Ilya Dryomov]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:12 AM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -1064,7 +1064,7 @@ static int rbd_header_from_disk(struct rbd_device *rbd_dev,
>>>         header->snap_sizes = snap_sizes;
>>>
>>>         return 0;
>>> -out_2big:
>>> + out_2big:
>>>         ret = -EIO;
>>>         kfree(snap_sizes);
>>>   free_names:
> â
>> Can you point where this current convention is documented?
>
> Yes.
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/Documentation/CodingStyle?id=865a1caa4b6b886babdd9d67e7c3608be4567a51

Huh.  That patch is not in Linus' tree.

>
> Do you find the software update "CodingStyle: Clarify and complete chapter 7" interesting?
>
>
>> Certainly not in CodingStyle, AFAICT...
>
> I suggest to look at the current version once more.
>
>
>> I know some people prefer a single space in there because it makes
>> "diff -p" work better, but nowadays with "git diff" this argument is
>> pretty moot.
>
> Would you like to discuss the corresponding software evolution a bit more?

Jon, could you please yank 865a1caa4b6b ("CodingStyle: Clarify and
complete chapter 7") from your linux-next branch or at least change "It
is advised to indent labels" to something less stronger?  It hasn't
even hit mainline yet and we are already getting spammed.

Looks like 9 out of 10 labels are not indented

$ git grep '^[a-z0-9]\+:' -- *.c | wc -l
27945
$ git grep '^ [a-z0-9]\+:' -- *.c | wc -l
2925

so I'd say that's a bad advise as far as consistency goes, and the
"diff -p" argument is pretty moot nowadays.

Thanks,

                Ilya