[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7D90907194A540339DD93446AFE09B37@zhaoleiwin>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:07:28 +0800
From: "Zhaolei" <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
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 workqueuetracepoints use TRACE_EVENT macro
* From: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
>
> * 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.
Hello, Ingo
Thanks for your teach.
I think remove the prefix tab only(but remain postfix) make code looks
a bit ugly. I prefer to remain both tabs.
It is to say I will not modify tabs in this patch.
Thanks
Zhaolei
>
> 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
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists