Re: [patch 07/66] btrfs: clear_extent_bit error push-up

Ilya Dryomov
Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:30:42 -0000

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:13:46PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/26/2011 12:09 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:18:42AM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> >>>> extent_io_tree *tree, u64 start, u64 end, -		       gfp_t
> >>>> mask); +		       gfp_t mask) __must_check;
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ shouldn''t this be placed at the
beginning of the
> >>> prototype?
> >>
> >> I don''t see why that would need to be the case. It needs
to be at
> >> the beginning of the prototype if it''s the actual
function
> >> definition but not when it''s a prototype.
> >
> > I''m not aware of a general recommendation, but the
__must_check is
> > related to return value and makes sense to place it there. There is
> > no other instance of __must_check placed at the end of
> > declaratin/definition so I''m applying the "be consistent
with
> > surrounding code" rule.
>
> Putting it at the beginning means indenting the entire prototype,
> which I''m not a fan of.
>
> - -Jeff

I think it would be much better to put it at the beginning.  For one
it''s conventional and the rest of the kernel puts it at the beginning.
The other, and much more important, thing is that it greatly confuses C
indexing tools like cscope.  Now you could argue that those tools''
regexes
should be tweaked but since it''s just a matter of taste why
don''t put it
at the beginning ?

Thanks,

		Ilya