Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:57:14 +0100 | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] reformat mtrr.c to conform to CodingStyle |
| |
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 12:10:22PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Nov 12, 2001 23:25 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > > Please incorporate this patch to make mtrr.c conform to the standards set > > forth in Documentation/CodingStyle which make it much more appealing to > > the eyes. > > > > /* Put the processor into a state where MTRRs can be safely set */ > > -static void set_mtrr_prepare (struct set_mtrr_context *ctxt) > > +static void > > +set_mtrr_prepare(struct set_mtrr_context *ctxt) > > { > > Is that actually CodingStyle? Don't see it much in the kernel code... > The much more common (AFAICS) style to split long function definitions is > > static void foo_long_function(struct long_struct name *foo, struct bar *bar, > int val, long *err) > > The only reason (AFAICS) for putting the return type on a separate > line is the (ancient) ansi2knr script, which just throws the return > types away for pre-ANSI compilers. Given that the kernel code doesn't > even conform to ANSI-C, there is no hope in hell of it compiling with > a pre-ANSI compiler.
grep:ing for the function-name using ^fname is a common use. Easily solvable anyway, but...
I don't think Lindent does everything 100% correct; at least its formatting of switch/case does look a little fishy:
switch (option) { case 1: /* blaha */
That feels kind of odd compared to the rest of the codingstyle.
Comments?!
/David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </ - 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/
|  |