linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging:fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c: fixed 80 character line limit coding

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1475870409.1945.11.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 07 Oct 2016 13:00:09 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Nadim Almas <nadim.902@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging:fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c: fixed 80 character line
 limit coding

On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 00:25 +0530, Nadim Almas wrote:
> why its seems worst to you i am just removing  "80 character line
> limit coding style"
> for the last 3 months I am trying to submit my first patch but patch
> is not accepted by you by giving reason i can't able to understand
> please help me

Taste in improving code is a difficult thing to acquire,
determine and utilize.

Keep on trying to improve the code and not just in ways
that shut-up brainless tools.

Please consider the difference between your initial patch
and this proposal: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9367167/

Apologies for not cc'ing you as your patch was what caused me
to look at this code at all.


> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 08:43:02AM -0700, Nadim Almas wrote:
> > > style issue
> > > 
> > > Fixed coding style issue
> > 
> > 
> > This does not seem like valid sentances that mean much to me.  Do they
> > to you?
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nadim Almas <nadim.902@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c
> > > index 774b0ff..bc0c48f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fb_s6d02a1.c
> > > @@ -30,20 +30,27 @@ static int default_init_sequence[] = {
> > > 
> > >       -1, 0xfc, 0x5a, 0x5a,
> > > 
> > > -     -1, 0xfa, 0x02, 0x1f, 0x00, 0x10, 0x22, 0x30, 0x38, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3d, 0x02, 0x01,
> > > +     -1, 0xfa, 0x02, 0x1f, 0x00, 0x10, 0x22, 0x30, 0x38, 0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3A,
> > > +                                             0x3A, 0x3A, 0x3d, 0x02, 0x01,
> > 
> > 
> > This looks worse to me now, remember, checkpatch.pl is a "hint", not a
> > hard-and-fast-rule.  Use it wisely.