[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH 2/2] procd: apply official kernel clang-format style

[Paul Spooren]

On 5/14/19 4:08 PM, Petr Štetiar wrote:
> Paul Spooren <mail at aparcar.org> [2019-05-10 17:36:21]:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Currently some files use a mixture of spaces and tabs within a single
>> file, instead of fixing style manually, a tool could do the job.
> I find consistent coding style important, but I also know, how hard is it to
> achieve it. It's some time already, so I don't remember all the glory details,
> but different clang-format versions produce different results, doesn't support
> certain options etc., so it's pretty confusing and introducing another
> overhead.
True, that's why I liked the idea of using the kernels style.
> Then you should enforce it somehow (commit hooks, make target),
> otherwise it's going to bitrot after sometime again etc.
I'd start working on some CI to test for functionality and also code style.
>
>> +static struct init_handler handlers[] = { {
>> +						  .name = "sysinit",
>> +						  .cb = runrc,
>> +					  },
>> +					  {
>> +						  .name = "shutdown",
>> +						  .cb = runrc,
>> +					  },
>> +					  {
>> +						  .name = "askfirst",
>> +						  .cb = askfirst,
>> +						  .multi = 1,
>> +					  },
>> +					  {
>> +						  .name = "askconsole",
>> +						  .cb = askconsole,
>> +						  .multi = 1,
>> +					  },
>> +					  {
>> +						  .name = "respawn",
>> +						  .cb = rcrespawn,
>> +						  .multi = 1,
>> +					  },
>> +					  {
>> +						  .name = "askconsolelate",
>> +						  .cb = askconsole,
>> +						  .multi = 1,
>> +					  },
>> +					  {
>> +						  .name = "respawnlate",
>> +						  .cb = rcrespawn,
>> +						  .multi = 1,
>> +					  } };
> it's just me or is this very ugly?

Very true, I think. For some cases it could make sense to disable
clang-format:

int formatted_code;
// clang-format off
    void    unformatted_code  ;
// clang-format on
void formatted_code_again;

>> -	list_for_each_entry(a, &actions, list)
>> -		if (!strcmp(a->handler->name, handler)) {
>> -			if (a->handler->multi) {
>> -				a->handler->cb(a);
>> -				continue;
>> -			}
>> +	list_for_each_entry(a, &actions,
>> +			    list) if (!strcmp(a->handler->name, handler))
>> +	{
>> +		if (a->handler->multi) {
> eh? (I've stopped reading the changes any further)

I think it's because I removed the ForEachMacro definition, I'll send a v2.

Best,
Paul




_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel