Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:10:21 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] bkl2mtd: cleanup |
| |
* Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > -static int _block2mtd_write(struct block2mtd_dev *dev, const u_char *buf, > > - loff_t to, size_t len, size_t *retlen) > > +static int > > +_block2mtd_write(struct block2mtd_dev *dev, const u_char *buf, loff_t to, > > + size_t len, size_t *retlen) > > That's actually worse... BTW, single-underscore-... for identifiers? > Odd.
(yep, that's odd.)
> > -static int block2mtd_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len, > > +static int > > +block2mtd_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len, > > size_t *retlen, const u_char *buf) > > Again, why split it that way?
these are really nuances, so unless you are interested in such nuances nowhere found in CodingStyle, stop reading here :-)
i personally try to minimize the number and complexity of function prototype patterns, while still trying to keep the linecount low. So if a function prototype wants to be multi-line, it's not a "simple one-line function prototype" anymore, so i use the same template for everything:
type function_name(vars ... more vars ...) {
[ having the 'type' separately makes it easy to judge the return type of a function (especially with syntax highlighting active). Aligned variables are an efficient extension of the 'line' concept that does not mix the function_name with the variables. ]
incidentally, a natural simplified variant of that is the following:
type function_name(vars...) {
which tends to stay cleanly 2-line and looks tidier and shorter than the:
type function_name(vars... more vars ...) {
form. The preferred form is of course:
type function_name(vars...)
Ingo
| |