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:0.134 / U:0.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site