On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 19:34 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:56:19AM -0400, Benjamin Romer wrote: > > +struct periodic_work * > > + visor_periodic_work_create(ulong jiffy_interval, > > + struct workqueue_struct *workqueue, > > + void (*workfunc)(void *), > > + void *workfuncarg, > > + const char *devnam); > > No. This isn't the right way to do it. The way the lines were broken > up originally was fine. It's ok to pull the parameter declarations back > to make it under the 80 character limit. Sorry, it was kind of an act of desperation to try and pass the strict check for parenthesis alignment. I originally wanted to do it like this: struct periodic_work *visor_periodic_work_create(ulong jiffy_interval, struct workqueue_struct *workqueue, void (*workfunc)(void*), void *workfuncarg, const char *devnam); But that generates the same parenthesis check message with --strict turned on. Trying to align everything with the parenthesis was very ugly, so I tried to save space by splitting the line at the return type. So should I just ignore the parenthesis warning for this one function? I'm kind of confused about this particular check to be honest. In Documentation/CodingStyle it says to never use spaces for indentation, but there's no way to pass this check without using spaces, or getting lucky and having things line up exactly on a tab. -- Ben _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
