On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 02:30:42PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:13:46PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 10/26/2011 12:09 PM, David Sterba wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:18:42AM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > > >>>> extent_io_tree *tree, u64 start, u64 end, - gfp_t > > >>>> mask); + gfp_t mask) __must_check; > > >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ shouldn't this be placed at the beginning of the > > >>> prototype? > > >> > > >> I don't see why that would need to be the case. It needs to be at > > >> the beginning of the prototype if it's the actual function > > >> definition but not when it's a prototype. > > > > > > I'm not aware of a general recommendation, but the __must_check is > > > related to return value and makes sense to place it there. There is > > > no other instance of __must_check placed at the end of > > > declaratin/definition so I'm applying the "be consistent with > > > surrounding code" rule. > > > > Putting it at the beginning means indenting the entire prototype, > > which I'm not a fan of. > > > > - -Jeff > > I think it would be much better to put it at the beginning. For one > it's conventional and the rest of the kernel puts it at the beginning. > The other, and much more important, thing is that it greatly confuses C > indexing tools like cscope. Now you could argue that those tools' regexes > should be tweaked but since it's just a matter of taste why don't put it > at the beginning ?
The rest of the kernel seems to use the beginning. I don't really have a preference, but it's good to use the same standard as the rest of the kernel. (Sorry Jeff) -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
