Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH] staging: greybus: fixed the coding style, labels should not be indented.

[Alex Elder]

On 6/3/21 4:22 PM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Manikishan Ghantasala
> > Sent: 02 June 2021 15:28
> >
> > I agree those are called bit-field member names rather than labels.
> > But the reason I mentioned is because the ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > gave out a warning saying "labels should not be indented".
> >
> > Sorry for the confusion in the name I referred to. So, I think this
> > change is needed as I feel this is not following the coding-style by
> > having indent before the width for bit field member. I went through
> > other places in source code to make sure this is correct, and sent the
> > patch after confirmation.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Manikishan Ghantasala
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 19:13, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 6/2/21 8:36 AM, sh4nnu wrote:
> > > > From: Manikishan Ghantasala <manikishanghantasala@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > staging: greybus: gpio.c: Clear coding-style problem
> > > > "labels should not be indented" by removing indentation.
> > >
> > > These are not labels.
> > >
> > > I don't really understand what you're doing here.
> > >
> > > Can you please explain why you think this needs changing?
> > >
> > >                                          -Alex
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Manikishan Ghantasala <manikishanghantasala@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c | 6 +++---
> > > >    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> > > > index 7e6347fe93f9..4661f4a251bd 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c
> > > > @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@
> > > >    struct gb_gpio_line {
> > > >        /* The following has to be an array of line_max entries */
> > > >        /* --> make them just a flags field */
> > > > -     u8                      active:    1,
> > > > -                             direction: 1,   /* 0 = output, 1 = input */
> > > > -                             value:     1;   /* 0 = low, 1 = high */
> > > > +     u8                      active:1,
> > > > +                             direction:1,    /* 0 = output, 1 = input */
> > > > +                             value:1;        /* 0 = low, 1 = high */
>
> Why are you even using bitfields at all?
> If you cared about the structure size you'd not have a byte-size pad here.

Apparently I committed this, and it was part of the very first
Greybus drivers...

These would be better defined as Booleans; there are others in
the same structure after all.  That would have avoided the
checkpatch problem in the first place.

I was probably thinking *a little* about structure size when
defining it this way, but I agree with you, the bit-fields
don't really add value.

> Since I doubt many copies of this structure get allocated the
> (typical) increase in code size for the bitfields will also
> exceed any size saving.
>
> Isn't the kernel style also to repeat the type for every field?

I see that style in many places, but not all.  I personally
like it this way--provided it's done in a way that makes
it clear where the integral boundaries are.

					-Alex

> 	David
>
>
> > > >        u16                     debounce_usec;
> > > >
> > > >        u8                      irq_type;
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> _______________________________________________
> greybus-dev mailing list
> greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev