On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 08:33:01 +0100 Philipp Stanner <phasta@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 18:16 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:08:20 +0100 > > Philipp Stanner <phasta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > int drm_sched_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched, > > > - const struct drm_sched_backend_ops *ops, > > > - struct workqueue_struct *submit_wq, > > > - u32 num_rqs, u32 credit_limit, unsigned int hang_limit, > > > - long timeout, struct workqueue_struct *timeout_wq, > > > - atomic_t *score, const char *name, struct device *dev); > > > + const struct drm_sched_init_params *params); > > > > > > Another nit: indenting is messed up here. > > That was done on purpose. > > I never got why so many like to intend to the opening brackets, > because: > 1. The kernel coding guide line does not demand it > 2. It mixes tabs with spaces > 3. It doesn't create an identical level of intendation > 4. It wastes huge amount of space and does not solve the problem of > long names, but might even make it worse: > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13- > rc3/source/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c#L1296 It's mostly a matter of keeping things consistent in a code base. I don't really have strong opinions when it comes to coding style, but I always try to follow the rules in place in the file/subsystem/project I'm contributing to, and clearly the pattern in this file is to align the extra lines of arguments on the first argument...
