Re: [PATCH] 2.5 Documentation/CodingStyle ANSI C function declarations.

From: Juan Quintela (
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 05:53:30 EST

>>>>> "linus" == Linus Torvalds <> writes:

linus> On Fri, 30 May 2003, Russell King wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 01:57:13PM -0600, Steven Cole wrote:
>> > +int foo(
>> > + long bar,
>> > + long day,
>> > + struct magic *xyzzy
>> > +)
>> Is this really part of the kernel coding style?

linus> No, but it's better than what it used to be.

linus> Also, while I don't think we should try to maintain 1:1 behaviour with
linus> the _worst_ offenses of zlib, I do think we should maintain comments etc,
linus> and a lot of the zlib function declarations used to look like

linus> int foo(bar, baz)
linus> long bar; /* number of frobnicators */
linus> long baz; /* self-larting on or off */
linus> {
linus> ....

linus> and the ANSI-fication changes this to

linus> int foo(
linus> long bar, /* number of frobnicators */
linus> long baz /* self-larting on or off */
linus> )
linus> {
linus> ...

linus> which while not according to the coding-standard is at least a reasonable
linus> compromize between having proper C function definitions and keeping the
linus> code _looking_ more like the original.

Once there:

 * foo - <put something there>
 * @bar: number of frobnicators
 * @baz: self-larting on or off
 * @userdata: pointer to arbitrary userdata to be registered
 * Description: Please, fix me
int foo(long bar, long baz)

Looks like a better alternative to me.

YMMV, Juan.

In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:16 EST