Re: [PATCH 1a/7] dlm: core locking

[David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>]

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
program...


> > +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.

Dave

-
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/