[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110302101547.GA3319@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:15:47 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:07:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > + size_t size = numa_distance_cnt * numa_distance_cnt *
> > + sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
>
> > + memblock_x86_reserve_range(phys, phys + phys_size,
> > + "TMP NUMA DIST");
>
> > + memblock_x86_free_range(__pa(phys_dist),
> > + __pa(phys_dist) + phys_size);
>
> These silly linebreaks are really annoying. Please ignore checkpatch when the
> solution makes the result so much uglier. Having line width up to 90-95 is still
> fine.
I'm letting all the printks format strings go over the limit (whatever
that may be) but all these files already mostly conform to 80-column
limit so I'm a bit hesitant to break it for codes. Hey, but it's
ultimately your call.
FWIW, I'm not really decided about 80 vs. whatever column issue.
Having a common limit definitely helps a lot but it seems almost
impossible to agree on one - is it 90, 95, 100 or 120? Given that, it
almost seems just sticking to 80 might be the only doable solution.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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