[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090413035700.GE11652@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:57:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tracing, workqueuetrace: Make workqueue
tracepoints use TRACE_EVENT macro
* Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> It it because I use similar format with other TRACE_EVENT
> definition. Actually, I don't know why we need to add prefix and
> postfix TABs, and is it necessary to use tab to make alignment for
> each fields.
The __array() entry is a bit special - i wouldnt worry much about
it, please ignore the checkpatch warning in this case - or remove
the prefix tab.
The alignment of the fields are useful visually: all the field names
are enumerated in a vertical row and are easy to see at a glance.
The postfix tabs are nice because they move the non-C-syntax closing
')' out of the line of sight. The prefix tabs are useful for a
similar reason.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists