[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090409030440.GA9169@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:04:40 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: checkpatch fixes
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Oh well. If I actually read perl, I could parse what the hell
> those 80-character rules are in checkpath. It already has random
> "it's ok if X" stuff. But it never seems to really have any "oh,
> but splitting is worse" logic.
We should perhaps introduce an too-deep-indentation warning: any
function with "[;{}]$" lines of 4 tabs in a row is already suspect
IMHO. At 5 it's definitely crazy and ugly.
This would be a very efficient function-length reductor: it cannot
be worked around via line wraps.
It would also be wonderful to warn about bad 80 columns 'fixes' -
i've seen way too many perfectly fine cleanups damaged by ugly
line-wrapping solutions.
We could also up the limit to 90 or 100 columns. My terminals are at
90 columns and that's still pretty ergonomic. 100 is too wide to me
personally. (i'd argue that lines longer than 100 fall outside the
brain's 'field of view' cache and are beyond a general complexity
threshold as well, so they are not efficient to read, regardless of
monitor size and quality.)
Ingo
--
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