On January 3, 2002 05:36 pm, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:34:27PM +0100, Daniel Phillips escreveu:
> > On January 3, 2002 05:05 pm, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> > > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > -static inline struct inode * new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> > > > +static inline struct inode *new_inode (struct super_block *sb)
> > >
> > > Minor issue of coding style. I'd steer away from such gratuitious changes,
> > > especially since they divert from the commonly accepted practice of having
> > > no spaces between the name of the function and its arguments.
> >
> > That's good advice and I'm likely to adhere to it - if you can show that
> > having no spaces between the name of the function and its arguments really is
> > the accepted practice. I've seen both styles on my various travels though
> > the kernel, and I prefer the one with the space. Much as I prefer to put
> > spaces around '+' (but not around '.', go figure).
>
> Maybe CodingStyle should have an entry for this, I'd vote for this style:
>
> static inline struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
OK, I'll revise it to that style. Shall we start an official janitor's style
guide? ;-)
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:21 EST