netdev - Re: Coding Style: Reverse XMAS tree declarations ?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:07:59 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     lsanfil@...vell.com
Cc:     joe@...ches.com, madalin.bucur@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        corbet@....net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        oss@...error.net, ppc@...dchasers.com, pebolle@...cali.nl,
        joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se
Subject: Re: Coding Style: Reverse XMAS tree declarations ?

From: Lino Sanfilippo <lsanfil@...vell.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:01:17 +0100

> Hi,
> 
> On 04.11.2016 07:53, Joe Perches wrote:
>>
>> CHECK:REVERSE_XMAS_TREE: Prefer ordering declarations longest to
>> shortest
>> #446: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/ethoc.c:446:
>> +			int size = bd.stat >> 16;
>> +			struct sk_buff *skb;
>>
> 
> should not this case be valid? Optically the longer line is already
> before the shorter.
> I think that the whole point in using this reverse xmas tree ordering
> is to have
> the code optically tidied up and not to enforce ordering between
> variable name lengths.

That's correct.