From: Randy Dunlap [mailto:rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > +void radix_tree_iter_replace(struct radix_tree_root *, > > + const struct radix_tree_iter *, void **slot, void *item); > > > +int radix_tree_split(struct radix_tree_root *, unsigned long index, > > + unsigned new_order); > > and above: > > As indicated in CodingStyle: > In function prototypes, include parameter names with their data types. > Although this is not required by the C language, it is preferred in Linux > because it is a simple way to add valuable information for the reader. I think the rule here should be a bit more nuanced. I think it is positively criminal to have an unnamed 'unsigned long' or 'bool' in a function prototype. But what extra information is communicated by adding 'root' after 'struct radix_tree_root *'? I know it's a root, you told me that with the structure name! Obviously sometimes it would be useful, for example if we had a function to move an entry from one radix tree to another, you might want to have 'struct radix_tree_root *old, struct radix_tree_root *new' as two of your parameters. > > int radix_tree_join(struct radix_tree_root *, unsigned long index, > > unsigned new_order, void *); > > Yes, the source file already omits some function prototype parameter names, > so these patches just follow that tradition. It's weird (to me) though that > the existing code even mixes this style in one function prototype (see > immed. above). I agree that void * should probably be named (as new_entry). Naming index and new_order is correct. But again, there's no useful information given by naming root. ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
