| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20131008041320.GA23838@kroah.com> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 21:13:20 -0700 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org> To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.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 12:18:43PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > The 80-character limit is not a hard-and-fast rule, nor should it be > applied blindly by people running checkpatch and fixing its warnings. > Sometimes it's better to violate the 80-character "limit" in the name of > readability, and when it isn't, it's often better to refactor into a > function or otherwise restructure the code rather than just finding > increasingly awkward places to break lines. > > Thus, change checkpatch's LONG_LINE warning to a --strict CHK instead. > Anyone wanting to use checkpatch to check for this can easily enough > enable --strict or turn on LONG_LINE explicitly, but it shouldn't be > part of the default warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> -- 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