Hi, On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 10:24 +0000, George Dunlap wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2020, at 10:57 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > wrote: > > > > On 30.09.2020 11:18, Anastasiia Lukianenko wrote: > > > I would like to know your opinion on the following coding style > > > cases. > > > Which option do you think is correct? > > > 1) Function prototype when the string length is longer than the > > > allowed > > > one > > > -static int __init > > > -acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface(struct acpi_subtable_header > > > *header, > > > - const unsigned long end) > > > +static int __init acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface( > > > + struct acpi_subtable_header *header, const unsigned long > > > end) > > > > Both variants are deemed valid style, I think (same also goes for > > function calls with this same problem). In fact you mix two > > different style aspects together (placement of parameter > > declarations and placement of return type etc) - for each > > individually both forms are deemed acceptable, I think. > > If we’re going to have a tool go through and report (correct?) all > these coding style things, it’s an opportunity to think if we want to > add new coding style requirements (or change existing requirements). >
I am ready to discuss new requirements and implement them in rules of the Xen Coding style checker. > -George Regards, Anastasiia
