Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <2d0127b079b8c9547519ee8c38a42042ad946d50.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC: Coding Style] Best way to split a long function
 declaration with modifiers
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Sat, 12 May 2018 08:41:31 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4fdc0980-d0af-3a02-02e7-0beed8ba05e2@gmail.com>
References: <4fdc0980-d0af-3a02-02e7-0beed8ba05e2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2018-05-12 at 18:19 +0300, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> I have been wondering if it's ok to break a long (function declaration) 
> line in the following way:
> 
> static __always_inline
> struct foo_bar *__get_foo_bar(type1 parm1, type2 parm2, type3 parm3)
> 
> 
> instead of:
> 
> static __always_inline struct foo_bar *__get_foo_bar(type1 parm1,
> 						     type2 parm2,
> 						     type3 parm3)
> 

I think so.

> I personally like more the former, not to mention that it uses also one 
> line less, but it seems less common in the sources.
> The coding style references do not seem to say anything explicit about 
> which style to prefer.

I think the first style should be preferred when the
combined character length of <type> <function_name> is
relatively long.