Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] staging: tidspbridge: Lindent to drv_interface.c | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:53:00 -0800 |
| |
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 22:29 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:25:34AM -0600, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote: > > > + pr_info("%s:%d handle(s) still opened\n", __func__, > > > + atomic_read(&bridge_cref)); > > I remember the rule was to break lines as far to the right as > > possible, no? Chapter 2 CodingStyle, same for the other similar > > changes. > It doesn't mean you have to right justify things, it just means > indented. The original code is fine here and the new code is fine > here. It's up to whoever writes the code to decide.
I concur.
My personal preference is to use a new line after the format string if necessary.
ie: pr_<level>("fmt\n"[, args to 80 columns if all fit]) or pr_<level>("fmt\n", args when single line exceeds 80 columns);
So for this case: pr_info("%s:%d handle(s) still opened\n", __func__, atomic_read(&bridge_cref));
I've done a patch here to tidspbridge that standardizes printk output.
Basically, the patch adds #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME "%s: ", __func__ to prefix "tidspbridge:%s:", removes the leading "%s:...", __func__ from the uses, coalesces formats and does argument alignment.
It cleans up the DBC_ASSERT, DBC_REQUIRE and DBC_ENSURE macros too.
I'm waiting for the Makefile change and whatever patches Víctor produces to be applied. I'll then redo my patch and submit it.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |