[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1418763529.14140.9.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:58:49 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernelnewbies <kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org>
Subject: newbies CheckpatchTips for multiline statements (Breaking function
calls)
http://kernelnewbies.org/CheckpatchTips
The block about "Breaking function calls" is dubious.
The majority of code today uses arguments aligned to parenthesis.
The suggested 1 tab is in fact very infrequently used.
CodingStyle has this as "substantially to the right", not 1 tab.
btw: there's a perferred/preferred tyop too.
------------
Breaking function calls
Sometimes a call to a function has several variables, and you need to
break the line in the middle of those variables. Look at this example:
pdata->urbdata = usb_alloc_coherent(pdata->udev, ACD_URB_BUFFER_LEN, GFP_KERNEL, &pdata->urb->transfer_dma);
This line is too long, so we want to break it up. By default, vim will
increase the indentation of the trailing line by one tab:
pdata->urbdata = usb_alloc_coherent(pdata->udev, ACD_URB_BUFFER_LEN,
GFP_KERNEL, &pdata->urb->transfer_dma);
This style is fine, and generally perferred. However, some driver
writers prefer to have the trailing line of a function call line up with
the starting '('. They use tabs, followed by spaces, to align the
trailing line:
pdata->urbdata = usb_alloc_coherent(pdata->udev, ACD_URB_BUFFER_LEN,
GFP_KERNEL,
&pdata->urb->transfer_dma);
Again, the one tab indent style is preferred, but don't change lines
that use the other style.
--
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