[PATCH] lib: Fix whitespace in params.c

Christopher R. Hertel crh at ubiqx.mn.org
Mon Aug 11 10:37:46 MDT 2014

That particular file hasn't been modified in more than two years.
Modifying the formating at this point would not (IMHO) lose significant 
history, and would bring that file into compliance with current project 

I do find it concerning that our current formatting style isn't supported by 
indent.  How about astyle?  Shouldn't we be using a style that is standard 
enough that there is support for it?  (Whitesmith, by the way, is supported 
by astyle.)

Volker:  The use of ( NULL==ptr ) vs. ( ptr==NULL ) is a common trick
          used to help catch forgotten equal signs.  ( NULL=ptr ) will
          cause a compiler error while ( ptr=NULL ) is a valid assignment.
          ...but that's just an explanation.  I'm not advocating for it.


Chris -)-----

On 08/11/2014 09:02 AM, Michael Adam wrote:
> Chris,
> On 2014-08-11 at 07:31 -0500, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
>> On 08/11/2014 05:47 AM, Volker Lendecke wrote:
>>> Review&push would be appreciated.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Volker
>> -1
>> If you are going to change the formatting style of a file, run it through
>> indent and change the whole thing to match the project "standard".
> Absolutely no:
> A mere white-space change is by far not as intrusive as a
> general reformatting. As Volker's commit message indicates,
> you can verify with "git show -w" that this commit does not
> change anything (except for white spaces).
> Also, I don't believe that "indent" has a mode to fully match our
> README.coding guidelines.
>> Also, this isn't a "fix", it's just a change.  (This isn't a bug, it's a
>> preference.)
> Well it is not a fix of a code bug, but of a deficiency of that code
> file, namely the deficiency of this code file to use the desired
> formatting with respect to white spaces.
>> The formatting style in this particular file is known as
>> "whitesmith", and it was once quite popular.  I know, because it's my coding
>> style.  I also know that I haven't touched that file since I rewrote it for
>> Samba 2 more than 10 years ago.
> Note that the pure proposal of the patch does not imply any
> criticism of the author of the orignal file or the code itself.
> It just tries to adapt the file more to today's standards in
> Samba in the least obtrusive way.
>> So, my vote is to either leave it as is or to completely convert it to the
>> current preferred formatting style.
> The disadvantage of that would be that it really disturbs the
> history. Git can detect (and ignore) whitespace changes, but
> it can't detect mere reformattings that go beyond that.
> (Git blame works across whitespace changes, not more intrusive
> reformattings.)
> It has hence been a guideline we followed for quite a while
> now that mere whitespace changes are OK, but reformatting
> patches beyond that are not.
> Hence I'd -1 committing an "indent" run on that file.
> So where are we? Leaving that file as it is? ... :-)
> Cheers - Michael

More information about the samba-technical mailing list