On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-01-05 at 10:12 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Geyslan G. Bem wrote:
> >
> > > >> @@ -404,12 +422,8 @@ static inline char token_mark(struct ehci_hcd *ehci, __hc32 token)
> > > >>������ return '/';
> > > >>� }
> > > >>
> > > >> -static void qh_lines(
> > > >> -���� struct ehci_hcd *ehci,
> > > >> -���� struct ehci_qh *qh,
> > > >> -���� char **nextp,
> > > >> -���� unsigned *sizep
> > > >> -)
> > > >> +static void qh_lines(struct ehci_hcd *ehci, struct ehci_qh *qh,
> > > >> +�������������������� char **nextp, unsigned *sizep)
> > > >>� {
> > > >>������ u32�������������������� scratch;
> > > >>������ u32�������������������� hw_curr;
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > And about that style? Should be done?
> >
> > You mean squeezing the function parameters into two lines?� That's�
> > okay.
> >
> > However, the style in this file is to indent continuation lines by two
> > extra tab stops, not to line things up with an open paren on the first
> > line.
>
> It's not consistent.
> It's a bit of a mix of 1 and 2 tabs, and some others.
I know. That's because the files were written by various people at
various times and nobody tried to enforce a rigid consistent style.
I'm not even consistent all the time in the things that I write. There
are places (see drivers/usb/core/config.c) where I indented
continuation lines by 4 spaces instead of 2 tab stops. And there are
places where a continuation of a continuation gets indented even
farther.
Trying to come up with hard-and-fast rules for this sort of thing is
pretty hopeless. Even "Maximize readability" doesn't work too well,
because different people find different things most readable.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
