linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] cris-cryptocop: Apply another recommendation from "checkpatch.pl"

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]

Message-ID: <130cda68-feed-8b48-e928-7e915888c7c9@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:18:09 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     linux-cris-kernel@...s.com,
        Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Mikael Starvik <starvik@...s.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] cris-cryptocop: Apply another recommendation from
 "checkpatch.pl"

>> @@ -2276,7 +2277,10 @@ static int cryptocop_job_setup(struct cryptocop_prio_job **pj, struct cryptocop_
>>  		(*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data = operation->list_op.inlist;
>>  		(*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data_buf = operation->list_op.in_data_buf;
>>  	} else {
>> -		if ((err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation, &(*pj)->iop, alloc_flag))) {
>> +		err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation,
>> +					       &(*pj)->iop,
>> +					       alloc_flag);
> 
> Checkpatch didn't say to put every argument on a different line,

I agree to this information.


> and that wasn't done before, so why do it now?

I tend to give each function parameter its own text line in such an use case
(for the known length limitation).


> There is plenty of room for at least &(*pj)->iop on the line before.

This is true. - Do you prefer an other indentation approach here?

Regards,
Markus