linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: bcm2835-audio: bcm2835.h: fix line length coding style issue

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

Message-ID: <1487381908.2198.14.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:38:28 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Adan Hawthorn <adanhawthorn@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
        Michael Zoran <mzoran@...wfest.net>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: bcm2835-audio: bcm2835.h: fix line length
 coding style issue

On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 20:32 -0500, Adan Hawthorn wrote:
> Thanks, Joe.
> 
> Is this to say that scripts/checkpatch.pl should be updated to some
> higher column limit?  I have made these cleanup changes before in a
> like manner.

Hard to say.

There could be some sensitivity to long identifier
name lengths added to checkpatch, but < 80 column
line length is still currently "strongly preferred".

I don't care much one way or another if it's 80
or 100 or something else as long as it's context
appropriate.

Awhile ago, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 18:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > In fact, I thought we already upped the check-patch limit to 100?
> > 
> > Nope, CodingStyle neither.
> > 
> > Last time I tried was awhile ago.
> 
> Ok, it must have been just talked about, and with the exceptions for
> strings etc I may not have seen as many of the really annoying line
> breaks lately.
> 
> I don't mind a 80-column "soft limit" per se: if some code
> consistently goes over 80 columns, there really is something seriously
> wrong there. So 80 columns may well be the right limit for that kind
> of check (or even less).
> 
> But if we have just a couple of lines that are longer (in a file that
> is 3k+ lines), I'd rather not break those.
> 
> I tend use "git grep" a lot, and it's much easier to see function
> argument use if it's all on one line.
> 
> Of course, some function calls really are *so* long that they have to
> be broken up, but that's where the "if it's a couple of lines that go
> a bit over the 80 column limit..." exception basically comes in.
> 
> Put another way: long lines definitely aren't good. But breaking long
> lines has some downsides too, so there should be a balance between the
> two, rather than some black-and-white limit.
> 
> In fact, we've seldom had cases where black-and-white limits work well.
>