Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:43:18 +0800 | From | David Teigland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1a/7] dlm: core locking |
| |
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:17:57PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> |----- Why the parenthesis? > ^^^^^--- more parens. > ^^^^^--- yet more. > what's your facination with parenthesis? > ^--- here we go again. > ^--- and again. > a few cases of pointless parenthesis around define values... > Here, again, we have a lot of pointless parenthesis around the values. > I'm not going to bother pointing out the remaining ones.
Hm, you might have removed some remaining doubt about my paren usage. Anyway, they're all gone now.
> > + int sb_status; > > + uint32_t sb_lkid; > > + char sb_flags; > > + char * sb_lvbptr;
> why not char *sb_lvbptr; ???
I personally think the right column looks nicer when it's lined up, but a quick survey shows I'm in the minority, so I'd better get with the program...
> > +static int dlm_astd(void *data) > Always returning 0 - why not a void function then?
> > +int dlm_scand(void *data) > void func?
I think kthread_run() demands this.
Dave
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |