Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:54:27 -0600 (CST) | From | "Robert S. Liesenfeld" <> | Subject | Re: PNP patch into kernel when? |
| |
On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Andrew E. Mileski wrote: > > > I think this squashes all the complaints put forward so far. > > If not, please remind me. > > I've just been looking at the PnP patch in slightly more detail. Is there > any chance you could use a slightly more conventional layout style? I > find that function definitions laid out as > > /* > * Find an empty region entry. > */ > static hwres_entry_t * find_empty > ( > void > ) > { > int i; > ... > } > > are a bit visually jarring, and they don't match any other part of the > kernel that I know of. Since I imagine many people may want to work on > the resource manager, it seems polite to stick to the standard coding > style.
I agree. A consistant style must be follwed throughout the code or major confusion will result.
-R
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert S. Liesenfeld <>< | Mail/News/UUCP Administrator xunil@bitstream.net IRC:Xunil96 | Programmer http://www2.bitstream.net/~xunil/ | Network Engineer finger for PGP public key | Die-hard Linux Addict "Foink." | Bitstream Underground, Mpls, MN
|  |