From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13D4C433F5 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:14:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B992D61052 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:14:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232042AbhJUPRI (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:17:08 -0400 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com ([213.167.242.64]:58836 "EHLO perceval.ideasonboard.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231331AbhJUPQy (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:16:54 -0400 Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (62-78-145-57.bb.dnainternet.fi [62.78.145.57]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1ACA68B6; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:14:37 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1634829277; bh=zOEFB7Jms20IR7qp5keHBdpl9QthTikkKor2iHB2Emc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OCdxF14dvBhfNzWLaZMJLF9ZgVJa7tsNjcxIFMVgrs1RDxD1rkHafXZO3oIA6kJse N7l767FggIH7HqGtyT45n/Fhvc41lwbtbCfkN1e9l71VtgdbX3UgPyRlYeJdlVL4+H ejD2iHtzABt8u7pAOvytTTeG1kGBzvTH0oGWDE+A= Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:14:17 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Hans Verkuil Cc: Jacopo Mondi , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Sean Young , Sakari Ailus , linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: Document coding style requirements Message-ID: References: <20211013092005.14268-1-jacopo@jmondi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 04:00:40PM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 13/10/2021 11:20, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > There are a few additional coding style conventions in place in > > the media subsystem. If they do not get documented, it's hard to enforce > > them during review as well as it is hard for developers to follow them > > without having previously contributed to the subsystem. > > > > Add them to the subsystem profile documentation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi > > --- > > > > All points are up for discussion ofc. > > > > But the idea is to get to have more requirement defined, as otherwise > > it's very hard to enforce them during review. > > > > Thanks > > j > > > > --- > > .../media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst | 24 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > index eb1cdfd280ba..9c376f843e1c 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/maintainer-entry-profile.rst > > @@ -180,6 +180,30 @@ In particular, we accept lines with more than 80 columns: > > - when they avoid a line to end with an open parenthesis or an open > > bracket. > > > > +There are a few additional requirements which are not enforced by tooling > > +but mostly during the review process: > > + > > + - C++ style comments are not allowed, if not for SPDX headers; > > if not -> except > > > + - hexadecimal values should be spelled using lowercase letters; > > + - one structure/enum member declaration per line; > > + - one variable declaration per line; > > Hmm, I don't mind something like: int i, j; > > But for anything more complex I too prefer one declaration per line. > > > + - prefer variable declaration order in reverse-x-mas-tree over > > + initialization at variable declare time; > > Add something like: > > ...unless there are dependencies or other readability reasons to > depart from this. This should probably go as the top-level, it's a valid comment for most (all ?) rules. > > + > > + As an example, the following style is preferred:: > > + > > + struct priv_struct *priv = container_of(....) > > + struct foo_struct *foo = priv->foo; > > + int b; > > + > > + b = a_very_long_operation_name(foo, s->bar) > > + > > + over the following one:: > > + > > + struct priv_struct *priv = container_of(....) > > + struct foo_struct *foo = priv->foo; > > + int b = a_very_long_operation_name(foo, s->bar) > > I'm not sure if this is what you typically see. > > Perhaps this is a better example: > > int i; > struct foo_struct *foo = priv->foo; > int result; > > should be written as: > > struct foo_struct *foo = priv->foo; > int result; > int i; > > > + > > Key Cycle Dates > > --------------- > > -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart