[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gYp4_9h1hsQOiHeEUX3TBZCsFWZkzrdcCi+YZ2QOKhxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 19:51:17 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: Change return type to vm_fault_t
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>>> 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 ?
Unfortunately this is one of those "maintainer's choice" preferences
that drives new contributors crazy. Just go with the two tabs like
Matthew said and be done.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists