[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131007212302.GB13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 22:23:02 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
gregkh@...ux-foundation.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] checkpatch: Make the 80-character limit a --strict
check only
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I've seen far more examples of the 80-column limit making code less
> readable rather than more. It's only really helpful when it forces code
> restructuring, *not* when it just forces an arbitrary line break.
So teach that piece of crap to complain about fucked-in-head line breaks like
ret_val =
leaf_shift_left(tb,
tb->
lnum
[0],
tb->
lbytes
-
1);
in addition to obscenely long lines (and yes, it is a real-world example).
The one and only point of such tools is to help locating the crappy code.
And that's the only sane criterion for evaluating new "stylistic rules" -
does that particular heuristic catch enough shitty places or not?
_Anything_ can be obfuscated to the point where warnings are not produced
anymore...
--
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