[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=fOYUjoqjW6+kvf7krqb_AqxmYbkcCwn-Oaw-ApFq9LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 18:29:52 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] docs: Explain the desired position of function attributes
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 5:22 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> It's not so much a sort order so much as it's a positional one.
Sure, there are two parts, the order w.r.t. the signature parts (e.g.
"before return type") and the order between the attributes themselves.
Both are included in what I meant.
By the way, clang-format-13 already has a way to pass it a list of the
"attribute macros" (such as `__unused`), so adding more information on
top seems reasonable.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists