linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] lib: bitmap: remove the 'extern' keyword from function declarations

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

Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 12:19:26 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] lib: bitmap: remove the 'extern' keyword from
 function declarations

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 09:25:08PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 4:59 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 02:46:21PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> > >
> > > The 'extern' keyword doesn't have any benefits in header files. Remove it.
> >
> > > +int __bitmap_equal(const unsigned long *bitmap1,
> > > +                const unsigned long *bitmap2, unsigned int nbits);
> >
> > Why not
> >
> > int __bitmap_equal(const unsigned long *bitmap1, const unsigned long *bitmap2,
> >                    unsigned int nbits);
> >
> > and so on?
> >
> > It's even in 80 limit.
> >
> 
> I feel like this is purely a matter of taste. No rules define exactly
> how the lines should be broken. I prefer the longer part to be below,
> it just looks better to my eyes.

In above case it's even logically better to split as I proposed.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko