lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [CFT] [JANITORIAL] Unbork fs.h
Em Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:34:27PM +0100, Daniel Phillips escreveu:
> On January 3, 2002 05:05 pm, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > -static inline struct inode * new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> > > +static inline struct inode *new_inode (struct super_block *sb)
> >
> > Minor issue of coding style. I'd steer away from such gratuitious changes,
> > especially since they divert from the commonly accepted practice of having
> > no spaces between the name of the function and its arguments.
>
> That's good advice and I'm likely to adhere to it - if you can show that
> having no spaces between the name of the function and its arguments really is
> the accepted practice. I've seen both styles on my various travels though
> the kernel, and I prefer the one with the space. Much as I prefer to put
> spaces around '+' (but not around '.', go figure).

Maybe CodingStyle should have an entry for this, I'd vote for this style:

static inline struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb)

> In general, I allow myself the indulgence of cleaning up the odd line here
> and there to be more pleasing to my eyes, so long as it's in the vicinity of
> a substantive change and doesn't introduce a new patch hunk. You could think
> of it as a perk that takes some of the sting out of doing the grunt work.

fair, thats what I usually do as well 8)

- Arnaldo
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.151 / U:1.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site