linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Drop 80-character limit in checkpatch.pl

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]

Message-ID: <4fb5db50912170830q70c7069ate6ccbc698073079f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:00:53 +0530
From:	Janakiram Sistla <janakiram.sistla@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Drop 80-character limit in checkpatch.pl

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>
>> Well, it could have been done in the other way:
>>
>> -                     ret = sscanf (buf, "0x%lx - 0x%lx", &start_addr, &end_addr);
>> +                     ret = sscanf(buf, "0x%lx - 0x%lx",
>> +                                  &start_addr, &end_addr);
>>
>> Just an example that the limit itself is usually not a problem
>> but its literal interpretation is..
>
> What? Your version is no better.
>
> In the above case it doesn't matter, but I've had grep's that fail due to
> people splitting the actual string etc, which just drives me wild. We
> fixed that to allow checkpatch to skip those warnings, but the fact is,
> the fundamnetal problem has always been the "80 character" part.
>
> I don't think any kernel developers use a vt100 any more. And even if they
> do, I bet they curse the "24 lines" more than they curse the occasional
> 80+ character lines.
>
> I'd be ok with changing the warning to 132 characters, which is another
> perfectly fine historical limit. Or we can split the difference, and say
> "ok, 106 characters is too much". I don't care. But 80 characters is
> causing too many idiotic changes.
>
> There are way worse problems in many patches than long lines. Too complex
> expressions. Too deep indentation. Pure crap code. People seem to get way
> too hung up on ".. but at least it passes checkpatch".
>
I truely agree on this.It will better if we can change the warning for
100+ as suggested.This cleans the code alot infact.

-Ram
--
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/