On Monday 19 March 2007 16:31:59 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:10:13 +0100 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > This is a basic CodingStyle cleanup for drivers/block/floppy.c
[snip]
> >
> > -#define LAST_OUT(x) if (output_byte(x)<0){ reset_fdc();return;}
> > +#define LAST_OUT(x) if (output_byte(x) < 0) { reset_fdc(); return; }
>
> Not for a coding style cleanup, but that macro is Bad according to
> CodingStyle, so hopefully it will be cleaned up in the future.
>
Looking at each of the (many) macros in there is on my TODO list, but fixing
macros was not the point of this patch.
[snip]
> > @@ -3816,7 +3803,7 @@ static int check_floppy_change(struct gendisk
> > *disk) */
> >
> > static int floppy_rb0_complete(struct bio *bio, unsigned int bytes_done,
> > - int err)
> > + int err)
>
> I don't care one way or the other about most of these, but would
> you explain that one above (and others like it), please?
Sure.
> It's not an < 80 columns thing. My <cough> recollection is that
> many indented function parameters in Linux are indented more like
> the original here, near the opening '(' after the function name,
> although I suppose that none of this is in CodingStyle.
>
The reason behind the change is manyfold.
The first reason is consistency. Function parameters that span over more than
one line should be indented identical for each such function in the file (and
preferably across files as well). The changes made by this patch make all
such functions the same within floppy.c
The second reason is that indenting two tabs seems to make the most sense for
a few reasons;
a) not indenting at all is ugly, plain and simple.
void function(int a, int b,
int c, int d, int e)
{
int foo;
int bar;
...
}
b) indenting only one tab stop puts parameters at the same indent level
as
variables in the function which is potentially confusing (at least
IMHO).
void function(int a, int b,
int c, int d, int e)
{
int foo;
int bar;
...
}
c) Indenting so that all parameter lines start at the opening
paranthesis
rarely matches up with tabs so you have to use varying amounts of
spaces
depending on how long the function name is. Not a good solution IMHO.
void function(int a, int b,
int c, int d, int e)
{
int foo;
int bar;
...
}
d) Indenting by two tab stops avoids the problems with a, b & c and also
avoids indenting so much so that the number of lines needed (when all
need to be kept <80 col) is not increased too much in most cases.
void function(int a, int b,
int c, int d, int e)
{
int foo;
int bar;
...
}
I also have a recollection (although I can't find the exact threads atm) that
in the past the question of how to indent function parameters that span more
than one line, settled on two tabs.
I hope that explains my reasons for making the change :-)
This should probably go into CodingStyle if some official consensus on this
can be reached.
--
Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
