[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1286640927.1891.13.camel@laptop>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:15:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + softirq-cleanup-preempt-check.patch added to -mm tree
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 23:04 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> +static inline void softirq_preempt_check(struct softirq_action *h,
> >> + int prev_count)
> >
> > unnecessary linebreak.
>
> How unnecessary is this linebreak:
> $ wc -c
> static inline void softirq_preempt_check(struct softirq_action *h, int
> prev_count)
> 83
>
> People, including me, still work with 80-col terminals. What I can
> tolerate are undivided strings, because it sucks if one cannot grep for
> anything from the log
I actually work on ~350 character wide terminals, but then, I vert-split
it 4-ways so I end up with ~85 chars per column.. :-)
But I agree the line should be split, I however much prefer the form:
static inline
void softirq_preempt_check(struct softirq_action *h, int prev_count)
--
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