lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 8/8] cris-cryptocop: Apply another recommendation from "checkpatch.pl"


On Sun, 28 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> @@ -2276,7 +2277,10 @@ static int cryptocop_job_setup(struct cryptocop_prio_job **pj, struct cryptocop_
> >> (*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data = operation->list_op.inlist;
> >> (*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data_buf = operation->list_op.in_data_buf;
> >> } else {
> >> - if ((err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation, &(*pj)->iop, alloc_flag))) {
> >> + err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation,
> >> + &(*pj)->iop,
> >> + alloc_flag);
> >
> > Checkpatch didn't say to put every argument on a different line,
>
> I agree to this information.
>
>
> > and that wasn't done before, so why do it now?
>
> I tend to give each function parameter its own text line in such an use case
> (for the known length limitation).
>
>
> > There is plenty of room for at least &(*pj)->iop on the line before.
>
> This is true. - Do you prefer an other indentation approach here?

Very much. Most of the kernel code puts as much information on a line as
possible, unless there is a reason to do otherwise. Then more of the code
will fit on the screen at one time.

julia

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:58    [W:0.824 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site