[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFqt6zb9KzPw0ih3fOs6DNd3RCcy9GYmxZ607_w7obn0Kym7Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 00:44:23 +0530
From: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: Change return type to vm_fault_t
>> It'd be nicer to realign the 2nd and 3rd arguments
>> on the subsequent lines.
>>
>> vm_fault_t (*fault)(const struct vm_special_mapping *sm,
>> struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> struct vm_fault *vmf);
>>
>
> It'd be nicer if people didn't try to line up arguments at all and
> just indented by an extra two tabs when they had to break a logical
> line due to the 80-column limit.
Matthew, there are two different opinions. Which one to take ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists