Re: [PATCH 4/6] iio: buffer-dma: Fix coding style complains

Jonathan Cameron
2025-12-06T21:09:19Z

On Thu, 04 Dec 2025 11:25:12 +0000
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2025-12-03 at 18:29 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 03:11:39PM +0000, Nuno Sá via B4 Relay wrote:
> >
> > > Just making sure checkpatch is happy. No functional change intended.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > -static struct iio_dma_buffer_block *iio_dma_buffer_alloc_block(
> > > - struct iio_dma_buffer_queue *queue, size_t size, bool fileio)
> > > +static struct iio_dma_buffer_block *iio_dma_buffer_alloc_block(struct iio_dma_buffer_queue
> > > *queue,
> > > +        size_t size,
> > > +        bool fileio)
> >
> > What about 80 rule?
> >
>
> This falls in the bucket where readability is hurt. At least IMHO, so that's why I
> did it this way. If Jonathan disagrees, I'll of course change it to the below style.
>
Marginal readability benefit. The complex return type on the line above is pretty
common pattern so my eyes are used to it even if no one else's are ;)

>
> > static struct iio_dma_buffer_block *
> > iio_dma_buffer_alloc_block(struct iio_dma_buffer_queue *queue, size_t size,
> >    bool fileio)
> >
> > (And personally I think that in 2025 we should grow up and forget about this
> >  and move on to 100, but... not a maintainer here :-)
>
> FWIW, Agreed! (And that is what I do for all the out of tree stuff :))

Given it another few years and maybe I'll relax more. :)

I don't really care that much as long as people are consistent and don't
end up with something really hard to read!

Jonathan

>
> - Nuno Sá
>
>
>