>> @@ -2276,7 +2277,10 @@ static int cryptocop_job_setup(struct cryptocop_prio_job **pj, struct cryptocop_
>> (*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data = operation->list_op.inlist;
>> (*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data_buf = operation->list_op.in_data_buf;
>> } else {
>> - if ((err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation, &(*pj)->iop, alloc_flag))) {
>> + err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation,
>> + &(*pj)->iop,
>> + alloc_flag);
>
> Checkpatch didn't say to put every argument on a different line,
I agree to this information.
> and that wasn't done before, so why do it now?
I tend to give each function parameter its own text line in such an use case
(for the known length limitation).
> There is plenty of room for at least &(*pj)->iop on the line before.
This is true. - Do you prefer an other indentation approach here?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
