[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v10 05/11] xfs: Do some whitespace cleanup in the data struct

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/11] xfs: Do some whitespace cleanup in the data structure xfs_quotainfo
From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:14:33 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130628163058.GW20932@xxxxxxx>
Organization: IBM
References: <1372371914-11370-1-git-send-email-sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx> <1372371914-11370-6-git-send-email-sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130628163058.GW20932@xxxxxxx>
Reply-to: sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 11:30 -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Chandra,
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:25:08PM -0500, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > In preparation for combined pquota/gquota support, do some
> > whitespace cleanups.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Wow.  Putting this in a patch by itself really puts it into stark
> relief.
> If we pull this in we're representing that some tabs and the alignment
> of the fields is more valuable than the comments?  I'm fairly certain I

If you put it that way, it does sound not correct, and I would agree
with you too :). 

But, IMO, it has to be more subjective than that. The comments removed,
IMO, add no additional value (the field name conveys the same
information). You can see that I left alone the comments that provide
some value.

> don't agree that's the case...
> I'm sorry for your trouble, but I think I should pass on this one.  Do
> you agree?

In effect, the code does look better (than I found it :) at the cost of
removal of redundant comments.

If you still don't want to include, I would accept your decision.

> Thanks,
>       Ben
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>