[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <480470C6.6050908@panasas.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:09:26 +0300
From: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@...asas.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
SL Baur <steve@...acs.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] checkpatch: relax spacing and line length
On Apr. 13, 2008, 18:18 +0300, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:53:48PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
>
>>> Sorry. I'm not going to change perfectly working editing habits *or* to patch
>> That's working well for you but apparently not so well for everybody else.
>
> Nice turn of a phrase, that.
>
>>> nvi to satisfy an annoying wunch of bankers. HAND, GAFL.
>>> --
>> Thanks for the insightful and mature comment, Al.
>
> Oh, for the...
>
>> I really hate to spend more time on this topic but folks did find merits in it.
>> There's no need to change anybody's editing habits if we allow this indentation
>> style in the CodingStyle document and in checkpatch.pl in addition to the
>> existing convention.
>
> "Allow" is such a nice word, isn't it? Let's take a closer look:
> * nobody prohibits lines satisfying your constraints ("tabs only for
> indent level"), so "allowing" that is meaningless
Currently checkpatch.pl prints an error if I use 8 or more spaces in the
indentation string and Documentation/CodingStyle says:
"Outside of comments, documentation and except in Kconfig, spaces are never
used for indentation"
Although CodingStyle and checkpatch just provide guidance and the final
word is the maintainer's I consider these recommendations as "disallowing",
or at least "discouraging". So did others that commented on patches I sent
in the past. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't have come up with this
silly initiative in the first place.
> * "indentation style" in the above refers to editor settings.
> To "allow" that, you advocate prohibiting the lines _NOT_ satisfying your
> constraints. Which, by definition, means extra work for people submitting
> patches, no matter how you spin it.
I'm certainly not advocating to prohibit the current indentation style,
just to relax the rules to allow a superset of it.
Basically, I'd like checkpatch to allow /^\+\t* *\S/
and, since Andy says that checkpatch knows "the indent to some degree",
it can warn if the number of leading tabs is smaller than that.
>
> BTW, while we are talking about conventions, would you mind keeping lines
> in your mail shorter than 79 columns to avoid wraparounds in quoted text?
> Unlike your proposal, that one actually _is_ a common convention...
No, I don't mind.
[Though it is a bit of a pain to keep that when automatic wrapping of long
lines is turned off in my mail program so I can easily quote patches or
code snippets.]
Benny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists