linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2016 17:57:12 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 17:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky
> <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> 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?

Nope, CodingStyle neither.

Last time I tried was awhile ago.