On 3/22/22 6:23 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 05:43:16PM +0800, Cheng Xu wrote:
On 3/19/22 2:18 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 07:43:21PM +0800, Wenpeng Liang wrote:
+static int erdma_set_ceq_irq(struct erdma_dev *dev, u16 ceqn)
+{
+ struct erdma_eq_cb *eqc = &dev->ceqs[ceqn];
+ cpumask_t affinity_hint_mask;
+ u32 cpu;
+ int err;
+
+ snprintf(eqc->irq_name, ERDMA_IRQNAME_SIZE, "erdma-ceq%u@pci:%s",
+ ceqn, pci_name(dev->pdev));
Parameters in parentheses are not vertically aligned, a space is missing before "ceqn".
Generally I will recommend such a large amount of code be run through
clang-format and the good things it changes be merged. Most of what it
suggests is good kernel style
Jason
Thanks, Jason. We already use clang-format since you recommended it last
time.
We review the changes made by clang-format case by case, and merge most
of the changes. With a few cases, we handle them manually.
For this case, clang-format put the ceqn at the first line, making it too
long (80 chars), and then the two lines of snprintf look like not
balance. So, I put the ceqn to the second line and broke the alignment
by mistake.
That sounds strange, clang-format never makes lines too long unless
strings are invovled...
Maybe I didn't explain this clearly.
The clang-format's result is well and matches the rule, the result looks
like this:
line 1: snprintf(..., ..., ..., ceqn, // 80 chars
line 2: pci_name(dev->pdev)); // 39 chars
The line 1 (80 chars) looks much longer than line 2 (39 chars). So I
put the 'ceqn' at line 2, then the length of the two lines are more
close, and may looks better:
line 1: snprintf(..., ..., ..., // 74 chars
line 2: ceqn, pci_name(dev->pdev)); // 45 chars
Thanks,
Cheng Xu
Jason
