[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1481853432.29291.76.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 17:57:12 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Remove no longer used second struct cont
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 17:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky
> <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > basically I'm talking about a bunch of 80-cols fixups.
>
> Please don't.
>
> Nobody uses a vt100 terminal any more. The 80-column wrapping is
> excessive, and makes things like "grep" not work as well.
>
> No, we still don't want excessively long lines, but that's generally
> mainly because
>
> (a) we don't want to have excessively _complicated_ lines
>
> (b) we don't want to have excessively deep indentation (so if line
> length is due to 4+ levels of indentation, that's usually the primary
> problem).
>
> (c) email quoting gets iffier and uglier, so short lines always are
> preferred if possible
>
> but in general, aside from those concerns, a long legible line is
> generally preferred over just adding line breaks for the very
> _occasional_ line.
>
> At the 100-column mark you almost have to break, because at that point
> people may start to be actually limited by their displays, but 80
> columns generally isn't it.
>
> In fact, I thought we already upped the check-patch limit to 100?
Nope, CodingStyle neither.
Last time I tried was awhile ago.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists