[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1670478.viNvIS23Oo@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:24:06 +0200
From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>,
Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/18] staging: r8188eu: hal: Clean up usbctrl_vendorreq()
On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:24:05 AM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I don't understand why you moved these from the top to the bottom.
> But the original was better. In networking code declarations are
> normally written in Reverse Christmas Tree format, longest to shortest,
> like this:
>
> long long long_name;
> medium name;
> u8 short;
Dear Dan,
I'm sorry that I forgot to thank you for the reviews in the other messages I
sent in reply. :(
I also forgot to answer to the above question...
I changed the order of the declarations because David Laight wrote "I think
you'll need 'reverse xmas tree' ordering as well." (copy-paste from his
message).
As far as I know you are both experienced kernel developers, so I took his
words for truth. Is it a matter of personal taste or Reverse/Non Reverse Xmas
Trees are strictly required by the Linux kernel coding style guidelines?
I thank you very much for the time you spent for reviewing.
Regards,
Fabio
Powered by blists - more mailing lists