[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091221063238.GC15721@linux-sh.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:32:38 +0900
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Am?rico 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 Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 02:04:37PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> > > > I like this patch, this is actually what I wanted to do.
> > >
> > > I have nothing against a switch, but it had better default to off.
> > >
> > > The whole 80-char limit is insane. It results in insane "fixes". Just
> > > about every time somebody "improves" a patch due to the warning, the
> > > result is worse than the original patch.
> >
> > Examples? :)
>
> balance_leaf() in fs/reiserfs/do_balan.c
>
> Example picked totally at random:
>
> set_le_ih_k_offset(ih,
> le_ih_k_offset(ih) +
> (tb->
> lbytes <<
> (is_indirect_le_ih
> (ih) ? tb->tb_sb->
> s_blocksize_bits -
> UNFM_P_SHIFT :
> 0)));
>
> See how everything is nicely aligned to 80 cols?
>
>
> Generally, don't look at this function after having a good lunch you want
> to keep. You have been warned.
>
This isn't a valid example, as it wasn't written by a human. This is the
result of Lindent being run blindly on the file and nothing more.
Try again.
--
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