[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] xsm: apply coding style
On 07.09.2021 16:09, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > On 9/7/21 9:50 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 07.09.2021 15:41, Daniel P. Smith wrote: >>> On 9/6/21 2:17 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> On 03/09/2021 20:06, Daniel P. Smith wrote: >>>>> --- a/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h >>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xsm/dummy.h >>>>> @@ -69,8 +69,9 @@ void __xsm_action_mismatch_detected(void); >>>>> >>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_XSM */ >>>>> >>>>> -static always_inline int xsm_default_action( >>>>> - xsm_default_t action, struct domain *src, struct domain *target) >>>>> +static always_inline int xsm_default_action(xsm_default_t action, >>>>> + struct domain *src, >>>>> + struct domain *target) >>>> >>>> The old code is correct. We have plenty of examples of this in Xen, and >>>> I have been adding new ones when appropriate. >>>> >>>> It avoids squashing everything on the RHS and ballooning the line count >>>> to compensate. (This isn't a particularly bad example, but we've had >>>> worse cases in the past). >>> >>> Based on the past discussions I understood either is acceptable and find >>> this version much easier to visually parse myself. With that said, if >>> the "next line single indent" really is the preferred style by the >>> maintainers/community, then I can convert all of these over. >> >> I guess neither is the "preferred" style; as Andrew says, both are >> acceptable and both are in active use. I guess the rule of thumb is: >> The longer what's left of the function name, the more you should >> consider the style that you change away from. >> >> Anyway, in the end I guess the request for style adjustments was >> mainly to purge bad style, not to convert one acceptable form to >> another. Converting the entire file to the same style is of course >> fine (for producing a consistent result), but then - as per above - >> here it would more likely be the one that in this case was already >> there. > > Understood, I will respin with all the function defs to align with the > "next line single indent" style, though it would be helpful for > clarification on this style exactly. Do you always wrap all args if one > extends past 80 col or is there a rule for when some should remain on > the first line (function def line)? I don't think that aspect has been discussed. I would say void sufficiently_long_attribute test(unsigned int x, unsigned int y, unsigned int z, void *p); is as acceptable as void sufficiently_long_attribute test(unsigned int x, unsigned int y, unsigned int z, void *p); with a slight preference to the former. Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |