lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2.6.25-rc5 2/2] gpiochip_reserve()
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 04:06:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:52:21 -0800
> David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > +int __init __must_check gpiochip_reserve(int start, int ngpio)
>
> I applaud the addition of __msut_check to a newly-added function of this
> kind, but we usually only add the tag to the declaration, not to the
> definition as well.

A bit unfortunate really, given that use of ctags and friends in some editors
jumps to the first definition they come across, so if the prototype is stuffed
somewhere in include/, it shows the definitions from drivers or fs or wherever
that doesn't have the tag.

Given it doesn't cost us anything except a few more bytes in the source code,
is consistency such a bad thing?

Dave

--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-14 02:35    [W:0.135 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site