linux-kernel - Re: [RFC: Coding Style] Best way to split a long function declaration with modifiers

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: <2d0127b079b8c9547519ee8c38a42042ad946d50.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 May 2018 08:41:31 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC: Coding Style] Best way to split a long function
 declaration with modifiers

On Sat, 2018-05-12 at 18:19 +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> I have been wondering if it's ok to break a long (function declaration) 
> line in the following way:
> 
> static __always_inline
> struct foo_bar *__get_foo_bar(type1 parm1, type2 parm2, type3 parm3)
> 
> 
> instead of:
> 
> static __always_inline struct foo_bar *__get_foo_bar(type1 parm1,
> 						     type2 parm2,
> 						     type3 parm3)
> 

I think so.

> I personally like more the former, not to mention that it uses also one 
> line less, but it seems less common in the sources.
> The coding style references do not seem to say anything explicit about 
> which style to prefer.

I think the first style should be preferred when the
combined character length of <type> <function_name> is
relatively long.