Re: [PATCH 8/8] cris-cryptocop: Apply another recommendation from "checkpatch.pl"
From: SF Markus Elfring <hidden>
Date: 2016-08-28 07:18:53
Also in:
lkml
From: SF Markus Elfring <hidden>
Date: 2016-08-28 07:18:53
Also in:
lkml
quoted
@@ -2276,7 +2277,10 @@ static int cryptocop_job_setup(struct cryptocop_prio_job **pj, struct cryptocop_ (*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data = operation->list_op.inlist; (*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data_buf = operation->list_op.in_data_buf; } else { - if ((err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation, &(*pj)->iop, alloc_flag))) { + err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation, + &(*pj)->iop, + alloc_flag);Checkpatch didn't say to put every argument on a different line,
I agree to this information.
and that wasn't done before, so why do it now?
I tend to give each function parameter its own text line in such an use case (for the known length limitation).
There is plenty of room for at least &(*pj)->iop on the line before.
This is true. - Do you prefer an other indentation approach here? Regards, Markus