On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:54:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 03:24:49PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > > > static bool > > > -iomap_can_add_to_ioend(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc, loff_t offset, > > > - sector_t sector) > > > +iomap_can_add_to_ioend(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc, loff_t offset) Can you change @offset to @pos while you're changing the function signature? > > Not sure which style you would like to keep in fs/iomap/. > > Should the function name be in the same line as "static bool" or in the next line? > > For previous function you made the function name definition in the same > > line. Or is the naming style irrelevant for fs/iomap/? > > The XFS style that iomap start out with has the separate line, and I > actually kinda like it. But I think willy convinced us a while ago to > move the common line which is the normal kernel style, and most new code > seems to use this. And yes, I should probably be consistent and I > should change it here as well. I prefer xfs style, but I've been told privately to knock it off outside xfs. So. Fugly kernel style with too much manual whitespace maintenance it is. :/ --D
