On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 14:44 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:39:05PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: > > On 17-05-17 08:25 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > > > Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:18:00PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: > > > > On 17-05-17 05:07 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > > > > > From: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> > > > > > > > > > > Introduce struct tcf_chain object and set of helpers around it. Wraps > > > > > up > > > > > insertion, deletion and search in the filter chain. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > + > > > > > +static void > > > > > +tcf_chain_filter_chain_ptr_set(struct tcf_chain *chain, > > > > > + struct tcf_proto __rcu **p_filter_chain) > > > > > + > > > > > > > > What are the rules for this? Common coding style is: > > > > static void tcf_chain_filter_chain_ptr_set(struct tcf_chain *chain, > > > > struct tcf_proto .. > > > > > > When this would not fit 80 cols (this case), you need to wrap the > > > text in front of the function name. That is exacly what I did. > > > > > > > That i understand. > > The question is: what does scripture dictate on conflict? > > Should a function signature always follow coding style and > > allow for exceeding 80 chars or the 80 chars rules trumps? > > Definitelly 80 chars rules trumps here.
Disagree. 80 columns is just a "strongly preferred" limit. Clarity for a human reader trumps everything else.
