[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1381182115.2081.218.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 14:41:55 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
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, 2013-10-07 at 14:33 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 22:23 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > 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).
btw: checkpatch does suggest refactoring when there are
6+ indent tabs with an if/while/for/do/switch statement.
so it already does bleat around there.
--
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