On Thursday, December 15, 2016 4:47 AM, Ian Abbott wrote: > On 14/12/16 16:14, Hartley Sweeten wrote: >> On December 14, 2016 6:42 AM, Piotr Gregor wrote: >>> -struct pci_dev *comedi_to_pci_dev(struct comedi_device *); >>> +struct pci_dev *comedi_to_pci_dev(struct comedi_device *dev); >> >> For the function prototypes I prefer no names for the "pointer" parameters. >> >> The "struct foo *" declaration is just as clear as "struct foo *bar". > > Maybe, but checkpatch.pl doesn't agree (not since commit > ca0d8929e75ab1f860f61208d46955f280a1b05e anyway)! Hmm.. Missed seeing that one go in. I still think it's silly to name struct pointers in function arguments. Especially since that normally leads to stuff like 'struct foo *foo' where the parameter name is the same as the struct name. Void pointers and generic types are a different matter. Naming those makes sense for clarity. Oh well... Just my 2 cents... Hartley _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
