From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@gmail.com>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch guide for newbies
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:29:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130923132901.GH6247@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+MoWDpwx_2kh9bEARh4D5xzyYhWekAceipf0YN=3a+Q5W4eNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:46:38PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> > It's preferred if the operator goes at the end of the first line instead of at
> > the start of the second line:
> > Bad:
> > - PowerData = (1 << 31) | (0 << 30) | (24 << 24)
> > - | BitReverse(w89rf242_txvga_data[i][0], 24);
> > Good:
> > + PowerData = (1 << 31) | (0 << 30) | (24 << 24) |
> > + BitReverse(w89rf242_txvga_data[i][0], 24);
> What is the rule for where to start the second line here?
>
The if statement alignment has become a rule and people will make you
redo it if it's not aligned. I haven't seen anyone have to redo a
patch because of alignment on these:
My favorite format is aligned:
foo = xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy;
Also popular:
foo = xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy;
Right aligned looks like nonsense:
foo = xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy;
Here is a more complex aligned statement:
foo = bar * (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy);
regards,
dan carpenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@gmail.com>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch guide for newbies
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:29:02 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130923132901.GH6247@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+MoWDpwx_2kh9bEARh4D5xzyYhWekAceipf0YN=3a+Q5W4eNQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:46:38PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> > It's preferred if the operator goes at the end of the first line instead of at
> > the start of the second line:
> > Bad:
> > - PowerData = (1 << 31) | (0 << 30) | (24 << 24)
> > - | BitReverse(w89rf242_txvga_data[i][0], 24);
> > Good:
> > + PowerData = (1 << 31) | (0 << 30) | (24 << 24) |
> > + BitReverse(w89rf242_txvga_data[i][0], 24);
> What is the rule for where to start the second line here?
>
The if statement alignment has become a rule and people will make you
redo it if it's not aligned. I haven't seen anyone have to redo a
patch because of alignment on these:
My favorite format is aligned:
foo = xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy;
Also popular:
foo = xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy;
Right aligned looks like nonsense:
foo = xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy;
Here is a more complex aligned statement:
foo = bar * (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy);
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-23 13:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-23 9:01 checkpatch guide for newbies Dan Carpenter
2013-09-23 9:01 ` Dan Carpenter
2013-09-23 12:46 ` Peter Senna Tschudin
2013-09-23 12:46 ` Peter Senna Tschudin
2013-09-23 13:29 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2013-09-23 13:29 ` Dan Carpenter
2013-09-23 14:04 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2013-09-23 14:04 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2013-09-23 18:06 ` Joe Perches
2013-09-23 18:06 ` Joe Perches
2013-09-23 20:17 ` Joe Perches
2013-09-23 20:17 ` Joe Perches
2013-09-23 18:35 ` bojan prtvar
2013-09-23 18:35 ` bojan prtvar
2013-09-24 16:36 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-09-24 16:36 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-09-24 17:26 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-24 17:26 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-24 17:43 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-24 17:43 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-24 18:50 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-24 18:50 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-24 19:29 ` Peter Senna Tschudin
2013-09-24 19:29 ` Peter Senna Tschudin
2013-09-24 19:59 ` Dan Carpenter
2013-09-24 19:59 ` Dan Carpenter
2013-09-24 20:13 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-09-24 20:13 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-09-24 22:10 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-24 22:10 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 2:11 ` Al Viro
2013-09-26 2:11 ` Al Viro
2013-09-26 2:52 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 2:52 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 2:57 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 2:57 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 3:04 ` Al Viro
2013-09-26 3:04 ` Al Viro
2013-09-26 3:27 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 3:27 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 3:48 ` Al Viro
2013-09-26 3:48 ` Al Viro
2013-09-26 4:21 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 4:21 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 5:53 ` Julia Lawall
2013-09-26 5:53 ` Julia Lawall
2013-09-26 9:55 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-26 9:55 ` Alexander Holler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130923132901.GH6247@mwanda \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter.senna@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.