Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/2] wlcore: align member-assigns in a structure-copy block

Eliad Peller [off-list ref] writes:

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Kalle Valo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Giel van Schijndel [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This highlights the differences (e.g. the bug fixed in the previous
commit).

Signed-off-by: Giel van Schijndel <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c
index f28fa3b..93a2fa8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/acx.c

@@ -1715,17 +1715,17 @@ int wl12xx_acx_config_hangover(struct wl1271 *wl)
              goto out;
      }

-     acx->recover_time = cpu_to_le32(conf->recover_time);
-     acx->hangover_period = conf->hangover_period;
-     acx->dynamic_mode = conf->dynamic_mode;
-     acx->early_termination_mode = conf->early_termination_mode;
-     acx->max_period = conf->max_period;
-     acx->min_period = conf->min_period;
-     acx->increase_delta = conf->increase_delta;
-     acx->decrease_delta = conf->decrease_delta;
-     acx->quiet_time = conf->quiet_time;
-     acx->increase_time = conf->increase_time;
-     acx->window_size = conf->window_size;
+     acx->recover_time               = cpu_to_le32(conf->recover_time);
+     acx->hangover_period            = conf->hangover_period;
+     acx->dynamic_mode               = conf->dynamic_mode;
+     acx->early_termination_mode     = conf->early_termination_mode;
+     acx->max_period                 = conf->max_period;
+     acx->min_period                 = conf->min_period;
+     acx->increase_delta             = conf->increase_delta;
+     acx->decrease_delta             = conf->decrease_delta;
+     acx->quiet_time                 = conf->quiet_time;
+     acx->increase_time              = conf->increase_time;
+     acx->window_size                = conf->window_size;

I would like to get an ACK from one of the wlcore developers if I should
apply this (or not).

I don't have a strong opinion here. However, it looks pretty much
redundant to take a random blob (which was just fixed by a correct
patch) and re-indent it. The rest of the file doesn't follow this
style, so i don't see a good reason to apply it here.

Yeah, this should be a driver decision and not just a single change in
one function. Hence I'm dropping patch 2.

-- 
Kalle Valo