linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Fix Lines should not end with a '('

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]

Message-ID: <Y1AtF+t5sipqDKuU@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:00:07 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Tanjuate Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@...il.com>
Cc:     forest@...ttletooquiet.net, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Fix Lines should not end with a '('

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 04:05:06PM +0000, Tanjuate Brunostar wrote:
> Code style warnings reported by checkpatch.
> Improve the layout of a function header:
> Put the first parameter immediately after the '(' and align the other
> parameters underneath it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tanjuate Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> index 5bdb5176772c..ff855def0bd5 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> @@ -87,33 +87,29 @@ static const unsigned short wFB_Opt1[2][5] = {
>  /*---------------------  Static Functions  --------------------------*/
>  static
>  void
> -s_vFillRTSHead(
> -	struct vnt_private *pDevice,
> -	unsigned char byPktType,
> -	void *pvRTS,
> -	unsigned int	cbFrameLength,
> -	bool bNeedAck,
> -	bool bDisCRC,
> -	struct ieee80211_hdr *hdr,
> -	unsigned short wCurrentRate,
> -	unsigned char byFBOption
> -);
> +s_vFillRTSHead(struct vnt_private *pDevice,
> +		unsigned char byPktType,
> +		void *pvRTS,
> +		unsigned int	cbFrameLength,
> +		bool bNeedAck,
> +		bool bDisCRC,
> +		struct ieee80211_hdr *hdr,
> +		unsigned short wCurrentRate,
> +		unsigned char byFBOption);

Why not also put the "static void" on the same line as the function
name?

>  
>  static
>  void
> -s_vGenerateTxParameter(
> -	struct vnt_private *pDevice,
> -	unsigned char byPktType,
> -	struct vnt_tx_fifo_head *,
> -	void *pvRrvTime,
> -	void *pvRTS,
> -	void *pvCTS,
> -	unsigned int	cbFrameSize,
> -	bool bNeedACK,
> -	unsigned int	uDMAIdx,
> -	void *psEthHeader,
> -	unsigned short wCurrentRate
> -);
> +s_vGenerateTxParameter(struct vnt_private *pDevice,
> +		unsigned char byPktType,
> +		struct vnt_tx_fifo_head *,
> +		void *pvRrvTime,
> +		void *pvRTS,
> +		void *pvCTS,
> +		unsigned int	cbFrameSize,
> +		bool bNeedACK,
> +		unsigned int	uDMAIdx,
> +		void *psEthHeader,
> +		unsigned short wCurrentRate);

I do not understand this indentation at all, how did you choose it?

thanks,

greg k-h