[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Question about style when converting from K&R to ANSI C.
> I have used more traditional style where the new Linus style was not
> warranted. Here is the patch for fs/jfs/jfs_xtree.c:
> --- bk-current/fs/jfs/jfs_xtree.c 2003-05-31 20:30:47.000000000 -0600
> +++ linux/fs/jfs/jfs_xtree.c 2003-05-31 21:02:14.000000000 -0600
> @@ -4225,8 +4225,7 @@
> * at the current entry at the current subtree root page
> *
> */
> -int xtGather(t)
> -btree_t *t;
> +int xtGather(btree_t *t)
> {
> int rc = 0;
> xtpage_t *p;
> I haven't yet sent that to the maintainer (worked until late last night
> and still getting -ENOTENOUGHCOFFEE from brain).
> Anyway, I agree that more traditional styles should be used unless
> otherwise indicated, but having the return type on the same line as the
> function name is something I've warmed up to.

OK, whatever. But are you planning on trying to reformat the kernel and
get that pushed into the mainline? That's a fool's errand for lots of
reasons. Nobody is going to get excited about having to look through
tons of patches which are all white space changes. And it screws up
the revision history. Annotated listings and being able to go from that
to the patch are a nice thing. If you get all this stuff applied you
are hiding the real authorship of each of these function declarations.
Larry McVoy lm at
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.138 / U:8.920 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site