From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7F11F66E for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:46:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728191AbgHZJqL (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 05:46:11 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42792 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727125AbgHZJqK (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 05:46:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x444.google.com (mail-pf1-x444.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::444]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34EA6C061574 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x444.google.com with SMTP id 17so690483pfw.9 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:46:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to; bh=JKM5/lhkEgevGRLiIxot/BsDa3JfHN5VbHm7nAN/Fcs=; b=jL0qekJvJ0pVx5x2R15t5zqQP+P+7sQasPZuzsR+G7SaNxBDHpdFkNOxNrX5BtA1ac NZ6+FaTyZhRYdhPHL2QmAWEGFgoOUdiIbuFAXgbk97RPdLDF2+MeRCVkaR0M0bqwfIVt r0D6JURs0Rk2FbctOHbD7131o4YG9lF9AJG26afsEI2Kf+hSOGI40hPCrXKYjfIC53+S N+52+rH/XZ+lxPT5QV5u5IuWXEqHPHugcQqHyYb0cHYr3I7gxM4o3g2RTcH9DUOsqaDk 8Dw8Sqf1jb5kalXRhSOv34SnN5AKiGrjZ2we5xR6zD8WuIN/uUc6evb6EzlolK9/5+G8 lOtQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=JKM5/lhkEgevGRLiIxot/BsDa3JfHN5VbHm7nAN/Fcs=; b=LSnwg9+LkUn8QSdsq78cw+poU13bMpYsK6Z5MpmRCKdQaJF93Hr2w1OrcmTjTBsdPL bAarTkkidi8f68RQOfBQLhoU7va5uT61lbarU69OiDGu6x0y0YYFWl8nTTtofXKrEvT6 ygleHgHfQhSxSilPMep1OFQDgi+3fBVCrMnIdmSrQdmhkjTo1bLAlgzUamM9+AeecQiY zDgI8/ORcSPIXsfWED19vFiF6WvsKWG2B1wLwDsL3YsU3+y/9hO0qrWEcdHK2tmdd7Kn xVeeXB+SRJ3/e5wNHgxnu7INZ2IiWOYVYDktX0yDDNAbrDhMAo4sIhoFyVs/u2DsT2vi MWTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530RnpBDKtonNUM7Om1t0DfJBMK9wS5gOo30hwJ0N6N6dbqT32Q2 yEOGeadkJg72+KFUZvYspKI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwZxvHQlWNpdi0jvtM0Df/LnKtPgggQ+SgFa2x2x/bTDtijWQ5iFpI2t1ekmGVYFd95DugtrQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:fa44:: with SMTP id g4mr10255822pgk.406.1598435168836; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from konoha ([106.210.38.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p9sm1778605pjm.1.2020.08.26.02.46.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:15:27 +0530 From: Shourya Shukla To: gitster@pobox.com Cc: Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, christian.couder@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com, liu.denton@gmail.com, peff@peff.net, shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] submodule: fix style in function definition Message-ID: <20200826094506.GA311769@konoha> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org >> The definitions of 'verify_submodule_committish()' and >> 'print_submodule_summary()' had wrong styling in terms of the asterisk >> placement. Amend them. > I pointed out only these two, but that does not necessarily mean > they are the only ones. Have you checked all the new code added by > the series? There is one more. It is not related to my patch series though. Here it is: ---- static char *compute_rev_name(const char *sub_path, const char* object_id) ---- Would you like me to correct this one too? >> Also, the warning printed in case of an unexpected file mode printed the >> mode in decimal. Print it in octal for enhanced readability. >I actually did check this side ;-) and am reasonably sure that there >aren't any other irrational choice of format specifiers. Sure! No worries!