Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934088AbcLPBu4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2016 20:50:56 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f68.google.com ([209.85.214.68]:34218 "EHLO mail-it0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933722AbcLPBus (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2016 20:50:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161216013706.GA20445@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> References: <1481806438-30185-1-git-send-email-geert@linux-m68k.org> <20161215162336.GA18152@pathway.suse.cz> <20161216013706.GA20445@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 17:50:47 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2mSESXwyjF1DdF3p4nsmp_9jKho Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Petr Mladek , Geert Uytterhoeven , Joe Perches , Steven Rostedt , Mark Rutland , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1081 Lines: 33 On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups. Please don't. Nobody uses a vt100 terminal any more. The 80-column wrapping is excessive, and makes things like "grep" not work as well. No, we still don't want excessively long lines, but that's generally mainly because (a) we don't want to have excessively _complicated_ lines (b) we don't want to have excessively deep indentation (so if line length is due to 4+ levels of indentation, that's usually the primary problem). (c) email quoting gets iffier and uglier, so short lines always are preferred if possible but in general, aside from those concerns, a long legible line is generally preferred over just adding line breaks for the very _occasional_ line. At the 100-column mark you almost have to break, because at that point people may start to be actually limited by their displays, but 80 columns generally isn't it. In fact, I thought we already upped the check-patch limit to 100? Linus