linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] .clang-format: update column limit

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: <4c6f8d63817cbc51765fd0b3046f81dccbd17ec7.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jun 2020 03:36:34 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] .clang-format: update column limit

On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 12:03 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:13 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > Ii think this is a not a good change.
> > 
> > If you read the commit log you provided, it ways
> > "staying withing 80 columns is certainly still _preferred_"
> 
> Yes, but the related email discussions were not about establishing a
> new hard limit, but about avoiding such hard limits for
> historical/technical reasons.

Exactly.  So don't set a new hard limit of 100.

This would _always_ wrap lines to 100 columns when
80 columns is still preferred.

Imagine using a 100 column limit where a statement still
fits on 2 lines.  Now imagine the same statement wrapped
at 80 columns still fitting on 2 lines.

Which would you prefer and why?