Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764129AbZLQQbR (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:31:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760563AbZLQQa6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:30:58 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:64934 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756360AbZLQQaz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:30:55 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=THxhRnydRhbUdaXcyrCxZDyapoK3Y87pyoLMxWPUyPs0yod+lv1hQziSXlxY+94ZBs xBORdAy7nUUSUSDsIAobkDcukyz/eBaJ8CdiTfbopuLeXwNhZMPgrRLzOBhzYuwMYu3a ZSAROpeE28B2tLAxWaKoSnD1iGf/FfF17ohgY= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <200912171618.32882.bzolnier@gmail.com> <200912171708.07899.bzolnier@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:00:53 +0530 Message-ID: <4fb5db50912170830q70c7069ate6ccbc698073079f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Drop 80-character limit in checkpatch.pl From: Janakiram Sistla To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , Mikulas Patocka , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alasdair G Kergon , dm-devel@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1870 Lines: 44 On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Linus Torvalds 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/