[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1459273107.25110.91.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:38:27 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Dominique van den Broeck <domdevlin@...e.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Shraddha Barke <shraddha.6596@...il.com>,
Radek Dostal <rd@...ekdostal.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] staging: fwserial: (coding style) Rewriting a call
to a long function
On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 19:14 +0200, Dominique van den Broeck wrote:
> Fixing a lone row exceeding 80 columns so the only remaining warnings
> emitted by checkpatch.pl are missing comments on spinlocks and memory
> barriers.
[]
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c b/drivers/staging/fwserial/fwserial.c
[]
> @@ -1343,9 +1343,11 @@ static int fwtty_break_ctl(struct tty_struct *tty, int state)
>
> if (state == -1) {
> set_bit(STOP_TX, &port->flags);
> - ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(port->wait_tx,
> - !test_bit(IN_TX, &port->flags),
> - 10);
> + ret =
> + wait_event_interruptible_timeout(port->wait_tx,
> + !test_bit(IN_TX, &port->flags),
> + 10);
Does this really look better to you?
Long identifiers like "wait_event_interruptible_timeout"
(32 chars) make
using 80 columns a bit silly.
Please remember checkpatch is a stupid script and that
not every warning it emits is dicta.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists