[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0911120912160.31845@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:18:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andres Baldrich <andresbaldrich@...il.com>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fixes for 2.6.32-rc6
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Andres Baldrich wrote:
>
> (Kernel)/Documentation/CodingStyle
> line 83:
A lot of people have added code to CodingStyle. That doesn't make it
final. For example, that 80-column thing never existed in my original
coding style, for a reason.
I'm really inclined to just remove the stupid thing entirely both from
coding-style and from checkpatch.
80 columns do not matter. What matters is:
- indentation
- complex expressions and statements
and those two issues _together_ means that 80+ columns should be damn
rare, but the 80 columns itself is not at all that important.
Much more important than 80 columns should be the general guideline that a
"terminal window" may be as small as 80x24. But notice how 80 is just a
small part of that limitation - the 24 is as important as the 80. We have
a guideline that functions should fit on a screenful or two, ie we should
generally aim for functions to be <50 lines long.
And the 80-column thing is EXACTLY THE SAME THING. We should remember that
people may read the code using a roughly 80x24 screen size, but the same
way that nobody sane thinks that "24" is some hard limit on number of
lines, why do people suddenly think that "80" is a hard limit on the
number of columns?
Linus
--
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