On 3/15/23 2:59 AM, Dmitry Bogdanov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:09:31PM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>>
>> On 3/13/23 1:11 PM, Dmitry Bogdanov wrote:
>>> +
>>> +static int tcm_remote_port_link(
>>> + struct se_portal_group *se_tpg,
>>> + struct se_lun *lun)
>>> +{
> i>
>> Oh no, what happened. Something probably got messed up in your patch
>> management because I saw the 0/12 patch said the coding style was
>> fixed up.
>>
>> If Martin will take a follow up patch or it's not a big deal to him,
>> I'm ok.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Mike Christie <michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>
> Mike, the code style is the same as in v2. AFAIR you said not to mix
> the first function argument in the same line with the first argument in
> the next line. In my patch there is no such mix anymore. Either all
We misunderstood each other. I was saying to use style:
static int tcm_remote_port_link(struct se_portal_group *se_tpg, struct se_lun *lun)
or
static int tcm_remote_port_link(struct se_portal_group *se_tpg,
struct se_lun *lun)
and don't do the specific style you used above :)
I had been using the style I had written above for new code, and trying
to sync us up on one style. I thought the style you used is common in
LIO but not common in the kernel.
> arguments are inline or all arguments in the next lines.
>
