On 5/8/25 6:52 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 08:01:52AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 5/7/25 6:04 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> +int bdev_rw_virt(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector, void *data, >>> + size_t len, enum req_op op) >> >> I applied the series, but did notice a lot of these - I know some parts >> like to use the 2-tab approach, but I still very much like to line these >> up. Just a style note for future patches, let's please have it remain >> consistent and not drift towards that. > > The problem with "line it up" is that if we want to make it return > void or add __must_check to it or ... then we either have to reindent > (and possibly reflow) all trailing lines which makes the patch review > harder than it needs to be. Or the trailing arguments then don't line > up the paren, getting to the situation we don't want.
Yeah I'm well aware of why people like the 2 tab approach, I just don't like to look at it aesthetically. And I've been dealing that kind of reflowing for decades, never been a big deal. > I can't wait until we're using rust and the argument goes away because > it's just "whatever rustfmt says". Heh one can hope, but I suspect hoping for a generic style for the whole kernel across sub-systems is a tad naive ;-) -- Jens Axboe
