On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:07:37AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 08:49:55AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, Khadija wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Julia! Thank you for the feedback. I will make the following changes and > > > > resend the patch: > > > > 1. Correct the patch description that is right under the subject line (make > > > > it precise and imperative) and make sure that it does not have more than 70 > > > > characters per line. > > > > 2. Adjust all the arguments of wait_event_interruptible_timeout so that they > > > > are lined up. All of them should begin right under ( . > > > > > > The problem here is that the ( is really far to the right. My opinion is > > > that the position of the second argument (ie the first one that is on a > > > line of its own) is ok in this case. So you can leave that one where it > > > is and line up the other one. > > > > > > > I kind of like lining things up like this. I think if you can't align > > things with the parens, then it's nice to at least use two tabs. It's > > not kernel style or anyone's style explicitly, but I kind of like it. > > > > It doesn't make checkpatch happy. > > > > I guess I probably wouldn't bother sending this patch. To controversial. > > I'd just move on to something else. It's not like there is a shortage > > of stuff to do. One idea in this file is that you could use > > sysfs_emit() in sysfs_read() and get rid of char tmp[32]; buffer. > > Dan, the problem is not that the argument is to the left of the ( > > The problem is that the last argument is indented exactly as though it > were an argument of the second argument. But it's not. You have to count > the parentheses to see that. It's very misleading. > True. I get that. I guess any change which fixes that is worth applying. regards, dan carpenter
