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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.


david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux