From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751293AbeELQYp (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 May 2018 12:24:45 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0169.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.169]:40061 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750854AbeELQYo (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 May 2018 12:24:44 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2110:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3871:3872:3873:4321:5007:7514:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12296:12740:12760:12895:13069:13255:13311:13357:13439:14181:14659:14721:21080:21627:30054:30090:30091,0,RBL:47.151.150.235:@perches.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.8.0.100 64.201.201.201,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:neutral,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:26,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: cloth77_2932b06e6052e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1623 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC: Coding Style] Best way to split a long function declaration with modifiers From: Joe Perches To: "igor.stoppa@gmail.com" Cc: Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 09:24:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <4fdc0980-d0af-3a02-02e7-0beed8ba05e2@gmail.com> <2d0127b079b8c9547519ee8c38a42042ad946d50.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.1-2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2018-05-12 at 19:07 +0300, igor.stoppa@gmail.com wrote: > On 12 May 2018 at 18:41, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > I think the first style should be preferred when the > > combined character length of is > > relatively long. > > > > thank you, I could provide a patch to the docs for this case, if it's not > considered too much of a corner case. I think it should not considered anything like a mandate. Perhaps it could be described as an optional/possible style but perhaps as well it's not necessary as coding_style for this does not have to be rigidly specified. cheers, Joe