On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:27:55 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:25:45 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 07:07 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > > On 04/23/2014 04:53 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > - Breakup long function names/args.
> > > > - Cleaup variable declaration.
> > > > - s/current->mm/mm
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > ipc/shm.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/ipc/shm.c b/ipc/shm.c
> > > > index f000696..584d02e 100644
> > > > --- a/ipc/shm.c
> > > > +++ b/ipc/shm.c
> > > > @@ -480,15 +480,13 @@ static const struct vm_operations_struct shm_vm_ops = {
> > > > static int newseg(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct ipc_params *params)
> > > > {
> > > > key_t key = params->key;
> > > > - int shmflg = params->flg;
> > > > + int id, error, shmflg = params->flg;
> > >
> > > It's largely a matter of taste (and I may be in a minority), and I know
> > > there's certainly precedent in the kernel code, but I don't much like the
> > > style of mixing variable declarations that have initializers, with other
> > > unrelated declarations (e.g., variables without initializers). What is
> > > the gain? One less line of text? That's (IMO) more than offset by the
> > > small loss of readability.
> >
> > Yes, it's taste. And yes, your in the minority, at least in many core
> > kernel components and ipc.
>
> I'm with Michael.
>
> - Putting multiple definitions on the same line (whether or not they
> are initialized there) makes it impossible to add little comments
> documenting them. And we need more little comments documenting
> locals.
>
> - Having multiple definitions on the same line is maddening when the
> time comes to resolve patch conflicts. And it increases the
> likelihood of conflicts in the first place.
>
> - It makes it much harder to *find* a definition.
And it changes a line that has nothing to do with the patch.
Sometimes the minority are right :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpbvHjTbXllC.pgp
Description: PGP signature