Re: [net-next v3 1/8] i40e: main driver core

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 00:59 +0000, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Perches [mailto:joe@perches.com]
[]
> Hi Joe,

Hi again.

> > > +/**
> > > + * i40e_get_netdev_stats_struct - Get statistics for netdev interface
> > > + * @netdev: network interface device structure
> > > + *
> > > + * Returns the address of the device statistics structure.
> > > + * The statistics are actually updated from the service task.
> > > + **/
> > > +static struct rtnl_link_stats64 *i40e_get_netdev_stats_struct(
> > > +					     struct net_device *netdev,
> > > +					     struct rtnl_link_stats64 *storage)
> > 
> > An alternative bsd declaration style might be
> > more readable for these very long types and names.
> > 
> > static struct rtnl_link_stats64 *
> > i40e_get_netdev_stats_struct(struct net_device *netdev,
> > 			     struct rtnl_link_stats64 *storage)
> 
> We're trying to stay consistent in kernel function styles, stay within
> standard checkpatch restrictions, and keep the code readable and
> maintainable, which all together make for some difficult choices.  No
> matter which way we go on some of these decisions, we run into the
> painfully gray opinion areas of how someone else might have solved the
> problems.

No worries.  Whatever you choose to do will be OK.

The BSD declaration style is pretty common in the
kernel tree too though.

Another thing would be to mark various arguments const struct
in the prototypes and declarations instead of just struct.

cheers, Joe