Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce the latent_entropy gcc plugin

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 16:01 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Emese Revfy <re.emese@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:55:44 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >  The limit on the length of lines is 80 columns and this is a strongly
> > >  preferred limit.
> > I think the code looks worse when it is truncated to 80 columns but
> > I'll do it and resend the patches.
> Yup, I understand your concerns, but since we're optimizing for
> readability by a larger audience that has agreed to the guidelines in
> CodingStyle, this is what we get. :)
> 
> One area I'm unclear on with kernel coding style, though, is if
> splitting all the stuff prior to function name onto a separate line is
> "acceptable", since that solves most of the long lines where
> __latent_entropy has been added. For example, I don't know which is
> better:
> 
> All on one line (gmail may split this, but my intention is all one line):
> 
> static __latent_entropy void rcu_process_callbacks(struct
> softirq_action *unused)
> 
> Types and attributes on a separate line:
> 
> static __latent_entropy void
> rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused)
> 
> All arguments on the next line:
> 
> static __latent_entropy void rcu_process_callbacks(
>                                                           struct
> softirq_action *unused)
> 
> 
> Greg, do you have a better sense of how to split (or not split) these
> kinds of long lines?

Another option is to add __latent_entropy the same way most
__printf uses are done - on a separate line before the function

__latent_entropy
static void foo(...)


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>