[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1497543134.14396.6.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:12:14 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] staging: lustre: lustre: several over 80 characters
cleanups
On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 17:06 +0100, James Simmons wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 11:01 -0400, James Simmons wrote:
> > > Cleanup many of the over 80 characters reported by checkpatch
> >
> > Please don't let checkpatch get in the way of lustre
> > readability.
> >
> > lustre commonly uses very long identifiers.
> > Long identifiers and 80 columns don't mix well.
> >
> > It might be simpler to declare in some document that
> > lustre uses lines of up to whatever length and require
> > that checkpatch should be used with the --max-line-length
> > option when run on lustre code.
>
> Greg would you be okay with this?
I trust Greg isn't a zealot.
Linus Torvalds has said he prefers a longer line length
(up to 100 cols)
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/15/749
> If we changed to a max-line-length to
> say 128 thay would mean very few checkpatch issues would remain.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists