On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:40:05PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 4 May 2023 19:41:54 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 01:20:01PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 May 2023 14:26:43 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > This GNU style of left aligning the function name should not be > > > > in the kernel. > > > > > > FTR that's not a kernel-wide rule. Please scope your coding style > > > suggestions to your subsystem, you may confuse people. > > > > It is what Documentation/process/coding-style.rst expects. > > A reference to the section? You mean the vague mentions of the GNU > coding style? Here I was looking at the "left indent the function name" - that is a GNUism. IIRC the justification is it makes it easy to find the function with 'grep "^func"' Coding style says: Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and are placed substantially to the right. A very commonly used style is to align descendants to a function open parenthesis. So this patch had things like this: +static void +pds_vfio_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) The first line is shorter than the second and the second is left not right placed. It doesn't even need wrapping. I know some people like to do this in some parts of the tree regardless of coding-style. The GNU idea is sort of reasonable after all. > If the function declaration does not fit in 80 chars breaking the type > off as a separate line is often a very reasonable choice. Reasonable yes, but not "common" :) > Anyway, I shouldn't complain, networking still has its odd rules. > Probably why people making up rules for no strong reason is on my mind. I usually try to ignore most of the style details, but this one stood out. When I checked the series against clang-format it was pretty good otherwise. A few minor fine tunings on some line wrapping :) Jason
