On Sun, 28 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> @@ -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?
Very much. Most of the kernel code puts as much information on a line as
possible, unless there is a reason to do otherwise. Then more of the code
will fit on the screen at one time.
julia
--
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
