Re: [PATCH 0/2] code style exercise: Drivers folder samples

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.02.2025 11:21, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > 1. Const string arrays reformatting
> > In case the length of items change we might need to introduce a bigger
> > change wrt new formatting of unaffected lines
> > ==============================================================================
> > 
> > --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> > +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/tables.c
> > @@ -38,10 +38,10 @@
> > -static const char *__initdata
> > -mps_inti_flags_polarity[] = { "dfl", "high", "res", "low" };
> > -static const char *__initdata
> > -mps_inti_flags_trigger[] = { "dfl", "edge", "res", "level" };
> > +static const char *__initdata mps_inti_flags_polarity[] = { "dfl", "high",
> > +                                                            "res", "low" };
> > +static const char *__initdata mps_inti_flags_trigger[] = { "dfl", "edge", 
> > "res",
> > 
> > --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/utilities/utglobal.c
> > +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/utilities/utglobal.c
> >  static const char *const 
> > acpi_gbl_region_types[ACPI_NUM_PREDEFINED_REGIONS] = {
> > -   "SystemMemory",
> > -   "SystemIO",
> > -   "PCI_Config",
> > -   "EmbeddedControl",
> > -   "SMBus",
> > -   "CMOS",
> > -   "PCIBARTarget",
> > -   "DataTable"
> > +    "SystemMemory", "SystemIO", "PCI_Config",   "EmbeddedControl",
> > +    "SMBus",        "CMOS",     "PCIBARTarget", "DataTable"
> >  };
> 
> Why in the world would a tool need to touch anything like the two examples
> above? My take is that the code is worse readability-wise afterwards.

I think the output is acceptable: not necessarily better than before,
but also not significantly worse. To me, the main takeaway is that there
are many unavoidable but unnecessary changes.