Re: [PATCH 10/12] staging: lustre: Fix misplaced opening brace warnings

[Srikrishan Malik <srikrishanmalik@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:35:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 19:01 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:01:36PM +0530, Srikrishan Malik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:18:13PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > That looks silly before and after.  Everything is indented in a funny
> > > > way.
> > > 
> > > Is this better:
> > > 
> > > 	static const ldlm_policy_data_t lookup_policy = {
> > > 				.l_inodebits = { MDS_INODELOCK_LOOKUP }
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > 
> > That is indented too far.
> > 
> > Honestly, I think it looks best on one line but in terms of real life we
> > can't ignore checkpatch warnings because eventually someone else will
> > try to "fix" it to not be on one line.
> > 
> > This function has the silly thing where the types are in one column and
> > the variables are in another.  But then over time inevitably we add more
> > variables and nothing is lined up any more.
> > 
> > I think it's best to move this const variable block to the very front of
> > the list.
> > 
> > req doesn't need to be initialized.
> > 
> > rc is normally the last variable declared.
> > 
> > lvb_type should be initialized to LVB_T_NONE instead of zero.
> > 
> > __u64 should be u64.
> > 
> > All those changes could be done as one patch titled, "cleanup variable
> > declarations in mdc_enqueue()".  There may be other cleanups you could
> > do as well.  Look hard.
> 
> I think it looks odd to mix named and unnamed
> initializers for the typedef and its members.
> 
> ldlm_policy_data_t is a union and it could be
> explicit instead of a typedef.
> 
> Perhaps:
> 	static const union ldlm_policy_data lookup_policy = {
> 		.l_inodebits = {
> 			.bits = MDS_INODELOCK_LOOKUP,
> 		},
> 	};
> 
> or maybe use another DECLARE_<foo> macro indirection.
>

This patch set is aimed at removing checkpatch issues from files in
lustre/lustre/mdc.

Is it ok if I just fix those in this set and post another patch set
to take care of other issues identified in review?

- removing typedef for ldlm_policy_data_t will touch many other
files/dirs which were not initially targeted for this patch set.
- There can be a separate patch to remove __u64.