On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 12:21:58AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:59:41PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 08:57:04PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:49:55PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 06:14:09PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:08:19PM -0300, Aline Santana Cordeiro wrote: > > > > > > -const struct atomisp_format_bridge *get_atomisp_format_bridge_from_mbus( > > > > > > - u32 mbus_code); > > > > > > +const struct atomisp_format_bridge* > > > > > > +get_atomisp_format_bridge_from_mbus(u32 mbus_code); > > > > > > > > > > No, this does not match coding style. Probably best to break the > > > > > 80-column guideline in this instance. Best would be to have a function > > > > > > > > Having the return type on the previous line is perfectly fine. There should > > > > be a space before the asterisk though. > > > > > > No, it's not. Linus has ranted about that before. > > > > Found it. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1054519757.161606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Two decades ago, really? > > This is simply one of the practical means how you split long function > declarations and avoid overly long lines. Not my favourite though, but > still better than those long lines. I've always thought we allow either style, but it has to be done consistently within the file. I was pretty sure that was policy but it's another thing that goes back decades so I don't have a reference. It shouldn't be about breaking up long lines. > > My personal preference would be to wrap at the opening parenthesis and > indent by just a tab, but I know many people who disagree with that... If you're running into the 80 character limit, then it's fine to use two tabs. I think we have been rejecting patches that push align the parameters but push past the 80 character limit. Using one tab is confusing because it makes the decalarations line up with the code. regards, dan carpenter
