linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] media: dvb_dummy

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191202063555.0f75e68f@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 2 Dec 2019 06:35:55 +0100
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
To:     Amit Choudhary <amitchoudhary2305@...il.com>
Cc:     "Daniel W. S. Almeida" <dwlsalmeida@...il.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rfontana@...hat.com,
        kstewart@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] media: dvb_dummy_fe: Fix long lines

Em Sun, 1 Dec 2019 22:07:22 +0530
Amit Choudhary <amitchoudhary2305@...il.com> escreveu:

> +static int dvb_dummy_fe_read_signal_strength(struct dvb_frontend *fe,
> 
> > +                                            u16 *strength)
> >  
> 
> In my opinion, the arguments on new line should be just below the start of
> arguments on top line. Like this:
> 
> +static int dvb_dummy_fe_read_signal_strength(struct dvb_frontend *fe,
> +                                                                     u16
> *strength)

No, that is not the way we indent. The alignment is relative to the open
parenthesis:

  foo(arg1,
      arg2);

Btw, if you run checkpatch --strict, you'll see it complaining if the
alignment is different:

	CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
	#2: FILE: a.c:2:
	+void foo(int arg1,
	+		int arg2)

> +               .caps = FE_CAN_FEC_1_2 |
> > +                       FE_CAN_FEC_2_3 |

The alignment here is given by the first argument:

   bitfield = BIT_1 |
              BIT_2 |
              BIT_3 |
              ...

or

   bitfield = BIT_1
              | BIT_2
              | BIT_3
              ...

On media, we usually prefer the first form.

Cheers,
Mauro