Re: [PATCH v12 05/18] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 17:33:52)
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 04:57:00PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:08)
> > > + */
> > > +#define KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, condition) \
> > > +               KUNIT_TRUE_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, condition)
> > 
> > A lot of these macros seem double indented.
> 
> In a case you pointed out in the preceding patch, I was just keeping the
> arguments column aligned.
> 
> In this case I am just indenting two tabs for a line continuation. I
> thought I found other instances in the kernel that did this early on
> (and that's also what the Linux kernel vim plugin wanted me to do).
> After a couple of spot checks, it seems like one tab for this kind of
> line continuation seems more common. I personally don't feel strongly
> about any particular version. I just want to know now what the correct
> indentation is for macros before I go through and change them all.
> 
> I think there are three cases:
> 
> #define macro0(param0, param1) \
>                 a_really_long_macro(...)
> 
> In this first case, I use two tabs for the first indent, I think you are
> telling me this should be one tab.

Yes. Should be one.

> 
> #define macro1(param0, param1) {                                               \
>         statement_in_a_block0;                                                 \
>         statement_in_a_block1;                                                 \
>         ...                                                                    \
> }
> 
> In this case, every line is in a block and is indented as it would be in
> a function body. I think you are okay with this, and now that I am
> thinking about it, what I think you are proposing for macro0 will make
> these two cases more consistent.
> 
> #define macro2(param0,                                                         \
>                param1,                                                         \
>                param2,                                                         \
>                param3,                                                         \
>                ...,                                                            \
>                paramn) ...                                                     \
> 
> In this last case, the body would be indented as in macro0, or macro1,
> but the parameters passed into the macro are column aligned, consistent
> with one of the acceptable ways of formatting function parameters that
> don't fit on a single line.
> 
> In all cases, I put 1 space in between the closing parameter paren and
> the line continuation `\`, if only one `\` is needed. Otherwise, I align
> all the `\s` to the 80th column. Is this okay, or would you prefer that
> I align them all to the 80th column, or something else?
> 

This all sounds fine and I'm not nitpicking this style. Just the double
tabs making lines longer than required.