[openib-general] [PATCH 3/4] New routing module which loads LFT tables from dump file.

[Eitan Zahavi]

Hi Hal, Sasha,

Regarding OpenSM coding style:

Sasha wrote:
> 
> Really? Don't want to bother with examples, but I may see almost any
> "combination" in OpenSM and it is not clear for me which one is common
> (the coding style and identation are different even from file to
file).
[EZ] This bothers me as I think we should use a consistent coding style.
You might also remember we had put in place a both a script to do
automatic indentation and coding style rule fixes (osm_indent and
osm_check_n_fix)

I did check for all "else" statements:
osm/opensm>grep else *.c | wc -l
397
osm/opensm>grep else *.c | grep -v "{" | grep -v "}" | wc -l
361

So you can see only <10%  (36 out of 397) "else" statement are not
coding style consistent. 
Checking what is the code that is "non standard":
osm/opensm>grep else *.c | grep "{" | awk '{print $1}' | sort | uniq -c
| sort -rn
      7 osm_console.c:
      6 osm_prtn_config.c:
      3 st.c:
      3 osm_sa_multipath_record.c:
      2 osm_ucast_mgr.c:
      2 osm_sa_path_record.c:
      1 osm_sa_mcmember_record.c:
      1 osm_sa_informinfo.c:
      1 osm_sa_class_port_info.c:
      1 osm_multicast.c:

You can see the majority of these mismatches are in code introduced by
Hal and yourself.

I think OpenSM should sue a single code style. My proposal is that we
update our osm_indent script with a set of rules we agree on and apply
to the entire tree.