On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:37:28AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > Hi Dan, > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 08:49:41AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > 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. > > Interesting. Do you have an example of this? I've thought checkpatch.pl > gave a warning if the line ended with an opening parenthesis no matter > what. The prefered style is still aligning with the parentheses but if you have to choose between a warning about going over the limit or a warning about aligning then probably it's fine to not align. I can't find an example, but I'm pretty sure we've been rejecting patches that align the parameters but now go over the 80/100 char limit. regards, dan carpenter
