On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 19:34 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:56:19AM -0400, Benjamin Romer wrote:
> > +struct periodic_work *
> > + visor_periodic_work_create(ulong jiffy_interval,
> > + struct workqueue_struct *workqueue,
> > + void (*workfunc)(void *),
> > + void *workfuncarg,
> > + const char *devnam);
>
> No. This isn't the right way to do it. The way the lines were broken
> up originally was fine. It's ok to pull the parameter declarations back
> to make it under the 80 character limit.
Sorry, it was kind of an act of desperation to try and pass the strict
check for parenthesis alignment. I originally wanted to do it like this:
struct periodic_work *visor_periodic_work_create(ulong jiffy_interval,
struct workqueue_struct *workqueue,
void (*workfunc)(void*), void *workfuncarg,
const char *devnam);
But that generates the same parenthesis check message with --strict
turned on. Trying to align everything with the parenthesis was very
ugly, so I tried to save space by splitting the line at the return type.
So should I just ignore the parenthesis warning for this one function?
I'm kind of confused about this particular check to be honest. In
Documentation/CodingStyle it says to never use spaces for indentation,
but there's no way to pass this check without using spaces, or getting
lucky and having things line up exactly on a tab.
-- Ben
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
