Re: [CFT] [JANITORIAL] Unbork fs.h

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>]

Em Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:34:27PM +0100, Daniel Phillips escreveu:
> On January 3, 2002 05:05 pm, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > -static inline struct inode * new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> > > +static inline struct inode *new_inode (struct super_block *sb)
> > 
> > Minor issue of coding style. I'd steer away from such gratuitious changes, 
> > especially since they divert from the commonly accepted practice of having 
> > no spaces between the name of the function and its arguments.
> 
> That's good advice and I'm likely to adhere to it - if you can show that 
> having no spaces between the name of the function and its arguments really is 
> the accepted practice.  I've seen both styles on my various travels though 
> the kernel, and I prefer the one with the space.  Much as I prefer to put 
> spaces around '+' (but not around '.', go figure).

Maybe CodingStyle should have an entry for this, I'd vote for this style:

static inline struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb)

> In general, I allow myself the indulgence of cleaning up the odd line here 
> and there to be more pleasing to my eyes, so long as it's in the vicinity of 
> a substantive change and doesn't introduce a new patch hunk.  You could think 
> of it as a perk that takes some of the sting out of doing the grunt work.

fair, thats what I usually do as well 8)

- Arnaldo