Re: [PATCH 1a/7] dlm: core locking
From: David Teigland
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 03:40:57 EST
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 11:17:57PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> |----- Why the parenthesis?
> ^^^^^--- more parens.
> ^^^^^--- yet more.
> what's your facination with parenthesis?
> ^--- here we go again.
> ^--- and again.
> a few cases of pointless parenthesis around define values...
> Here, again, we have a lot of pointless parenthesis around the values.
> I'm not going to bother pointing out the remaining ones.
Hm, you might have removed some remaining doubt about my paren usage.
Anyway, they're all gone now.
> > + int sb_status;
> > + uint32_t sb_lkid;
> > + char sb_flags;
> > + char * sb_lvbptr;
> why not char *sb_lvbptr; ???
I personally think the right column looks nicer when it's lined up, but a
quick survey shows I'm in the minority, so I'd better get with the
> > +static int dlm_astd(void *data)
> Always returning 0 - why not a void function then?
> > +int dlm_scand(void *data)
> void func?
I think kthread_run() demands this.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/