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

[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH] Drop 80-character limit in checkpatch.pl



On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds linux-foundation org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>
>> Well, it could have been done in the other way:
>>
>> -                     ret = sscanf (buf, "0x%lx - 0x%lx", &start_addr, &end_addr);
>> +                     ret = sscanf(buf, "0x%lx - 0x%lx",
>> +                                  &start_addr, &end_addr);
>>
>> Just an example that the limit itself is usually not a problem
>> but its literal interpretation is..
>
> What? Your version is no better.
>
> In the above case it doesn't matter, but I've had grep's that fail due to
> people splitting the actual string etc, which just drives me wild. We
> fixed that to allow checkpatch to skip those warnings, but the fact is,
> the fundamnetal problem has always been the "80 character" part.
>
> I don't think any kernel developers use a vt100 any more. And even if they
> do, I bet they curse the "24 lines" more than they curse the occasional
> 80+ character lines.
>
> I'd be ok with changing the warning to 132 characters, which is another
> perfectly fine historical limit. Or we can split the difference, and say
> "ok, 106 characters is too much". I don't care. But 80 characters is
> causing too many idiotic changes.
>
> There are way worse problems in many patches than long lines. Too complex
> expressions. Too deep indentation. Pure crap code. People seem to get way
> too hung up on ".. but at least it passes checkpatch".
>
I truely agree on this.It will better if we can change the warning for
100+ as suggested.This cleans the code alot infact.

-Ram


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