Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fasync: Use tabs instead of spaces in code indent | From | Wen Gu <> | Date | Wed, 10 Nov 2021 19:38:58 +0800 |
| |
On 2021/11/10 6:58 pm, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 2021-11-10 at 14:29 +0800, Wen Gu wrote: >> When I investigated about fasync_list in SMC network subsystem, >> I happened to find that here uses spaces instead of tabs in code >> indent and fix this by the way. >> >> Fixes: f7347ce4ee7c ("fasync: re-organize fasync entry insertion to >> allow it under a spinlock") >> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com> >> Reviewed-by: Tony Lu <tonylu@linux.alibaba.com> >> --- >> fs/fcntl.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/fcntl.c b/fs/fcntl.c >> index 9c6c6a3..36ba188 100644 >> --- a/fs/fcntl.c >> +++ b/fs/fcntl.c >> @@ -927,7 +927,7 @@ void fasync_free(struct fasync_struct *new) >> */ >> struct fasync_struct *fasync_insert_entry(int fd, struct file *filp, struct fasync_struct **fapp, struct fasync_struct *new) >> { >> - struct fasync_struct *fa, **fp; >> + struct fasync_struct *fa, **fp; >> >> spin_lock(&filp->f_lock); >> spin_lock(&fasync_lock); > > Hi Wen, > > I usually don't take patches that just fix whitespace like this. The > reason is that these sorts of patches tend to make backporting difficult > as they introduce merge conflicts for no good reason. > > When you're making substantial changes in an area, then please do go > ahead and fix up whitespace in the same area, but patches that just fix > up whitespace are more trouble than they are worth. > > Sorry, >
Thank you for the reminding. I didn't realize my unintentional action would bring trouble to the backport. I will keep this in mind.
Thanks, Wen Gu
| |