Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Aug 2016 12:25:53 +0200 (CEST) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |