From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] AF_RXRPC: Add blkcipher accessors for using kernel data directly [try #2] Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:19:02 +0000 Message-ID: <25477.1174054742@redhat.com> References: <20070316151257.24238f2a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20070316133238.GA2173@infradead.org> <20070316125008.3740.44693.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20070316125016.3740.96837.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <25094.1174053465@redhat.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, herbert.xu@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@infradead.org To: Alan Cox Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:53811 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752146AbXCPOTV (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:19:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070316151257.24238f2a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > As do many things but the goal of the coding style is consistency and > almost all other code doesn't have the static inline wasting an extra > display line. Actually it doesn't waste an extra display line. Either the static inline is on a line of its own, or the first argument is on a line of its own. Either way it uses up two lines - unless you want to split it up further and have four lines as per Christoph's second suggestion (static inline / void / funcname / 1st arg). David