[PATCH 1/9] staging: unisys: clean up periodic_work.c and periodic_work.h

Romer, Benjamin M Benjamin.Romer at unisys.com
Thu Sep 25 16:53:53 UTC 2014

On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 19:34 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:56:19AM -0400, Benjamin Romer wrote:
> > +struct periodic_work *
> > +	visor_periodic_work_create(ulong jiffy_interval,
> > +				   struct workqueue_struct *workqueue,
> > +				   void (*workfunc)(void *),
> > +				   void *workfuncarg,
> > +				   const char *devnam);
> No.  This isn't the right way to do it.  The way the lines were broken
> up originally was fine.  It's ok to pull the parameter declarations back
> to make it under the 80 character limit.

Sorry, it was kind of an act of desperation to try and pass the strict
check for parenthesis alignment. I originally wanted to do it like this:

struct periodic_work *visor_periodic_work_create(ulong jiffy_interval,
			struct workqueue_struct *workqueue,
			void (*workfunc)(void*), void *workfuncarg,
			const char *devnam);

But that generates the same parenthesis check message with --strict
turned on. Trying to align everything with the parenthesis was very
ugly, so I tried to save space by splitting the line at the return type.

So should I just ignore the parenthesis warning for this one function?
I'm kind of confused about this particular check to be honest. In
Documentation/CodingStyle it says to never use spaces for indentation,
but there's no way to pass this check without using spaces, or getting
lucky and having things line up exactly on a tab.

-- Ben

More information about the devel mailing list