On 5/19/17 10:16 PM, yuan linyu wrote:
> @@ -240,13 +240,15 @@ struct ndisc_options *ndisc_parse_options(const struct
> net_device *dev,
> "%s: duplicated ND6 option found:
> type=%d\n",
> __func__, nd_opt->nd_opt_type);
> } else {
> - ndopts->nd_opt_array[nd_opt->nd_opt_type] =
> nd_opt;
> + ndopts->nd_opt_array[nd_opt->nd_opt_type] =
> + nd_opt;
> }
> break;
> case ND_OPT_PREFIX_INFO:
> ndopts->nd_opts_pi_end = nd_opt;
> if (!ndopts->nd_opt_array[nd_opt->nd_opt_type])
> - ndopts->nd_opt_array[nd_opt->nd_opt_type] =
> nd_opt;
> + ndopts->nd_opt_array[nd_opt->nd_opt_type] =
> + nd_opt;
> break;
> #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTE_INFO
> case ND_OPT_ROUTE_INFO:
This makes the code less readable. Readability needs to trump rigid
80-column coding style.
> @@ -512,7 +513,8 @@ void ndisc_send_na(struct net_device *dev, const struct
> in6_addr *daddr,
> in6_ifa_put(ifp);
> } else {
> if (ipv6_dev_get_saddr(dev_net(dev), dev, daddr,
> -
> inet6_sk(dev_net(dev)->ipv6.ndisc_sk)->srcprefs,
> + inet6_sk(dev_net(dev)->ipv6.ndisc_sk)->
> + srcprefs,
again here
I did not finish out this really long patch, but in general the
80-column rule can not be applied so rigidly.
