On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 08:06:31AM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:03:51PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 05:33:06PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > > @@ -419,17 +411,14 @@ static int dgnc_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, > > > const struct pci_device_id *ent) > > > brd->dpastatus = BD_RUNNING; > > > > > > dgnc_board[dgnc_num_boards++] = brd; > > > - > > > return 0; > > > > > > > There's nothing wrong with putting a blank before a return 0. The blank > > sort of makes it stand out nicely. > > I thought this one would get a comment :) The reasoning was to be > uniform across the whole directory. Originally some returns were > preceded by a new line while others were not. I picked one and went for > uniformity. Is this level of uniformity too much? Is it better to be > less pedantic and have less code churn? >
It's actually already uniform. If the function ends in "return 0;" there is a blank line. If the "return 0;" is in the middle there isn't. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
