Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2023 10:41:20 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     Jaewan Kim <jaewan@google.com>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com, adelva@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] mac80211_hwsim: add PMSR capability support
Message-ID: <Y+9LwLgA+Gm+3EHC@kroah.com>
References: <20230207085400.2232544-1-jaewan@google.com>
 <20230207085400.2232544-2-jaewan@google.com>
 <6ad6708b124b50ff9ea64771b31d09e9168bfa17.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <CABZjns42zm8Xi-BU0pvT3edNHuJZoh-xshgUk3Oc=nMbxbiY8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+8wHsznYorBS95n@kroah.com>
 <e98a38890bb680c21a6d51c8a03589d1481b4e29.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <Y+9JXU+5QEU1TMdi@kroah.com>
 <a117074810ef2c15ba3fa5fb60db2f5927e736eb.camel@sipsolutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a117074810ef2c15ba3fa5fb60db2f5927e736eb.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:34:32AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:31 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:13:08AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 08:43 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 02:11:38PM +0900, Jaewan Kim wrote:
> > > > > BTW,  can I expect you to review my changes for further patchsets?
> > > > > I sometimes get conflicting opinions (e.g. line limits)
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I was the one that said "you can use 100 columns", if that's not
> > > > ok in the networking subsystem yet, that was my fault as it's been that
> > > > way in other parts of the kernel tree for a while.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hah. Maybe that's my mistake then, I was still at "use 80 columns where
> > > it's simple, and more if it would look worse" ...
> > 
> > It was changed back in 2020:
> >  bdc48fa11e46 ("checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate 80-column warning")
> > 
> > seems to take a while to propagate out to all the subsystems :)
> 
> Ah no, I was aware of that, but I guess we interpret this bit
> differently:
> 
> +Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks,
> +unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does
> +not hide information.
> 
> 
> Here, I would've said something like:
> 
> +	if (request->request_lci && nla_put_flag(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_REQ_ATTR_REQUEST_LCI))
> +		return -ENOBUFS;
> 
> can indeed "be broken into sensible chunks, unless ..."
> 
> Just like this one already did:
> 
> +	if (request->request_civicloc &&
> +	    nla_put_flag(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_REQ_ATTR_REQUEST_CIVICLOC))
> +		return -ENOBUFS;
> 
> 
> Personally I think the latter is easier to read because scanning the
> long line for the logical break at "&&" is harder for me, but YMMV.

I think the latter is also better, so all is good :)