linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 09/18] iio: afe: iio-rescale: Simplify with dev_err

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:39:06 +0200
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
        Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Beniamin Bia <beniamin.bia@...log.com>,
        Tomasz Duszynski <tomasz.duszynski@...akon.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/18] iio: afe: iio-rescale: Simplify with
 dev_err_probe()



On 2020-08-28 09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 08:58, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se> wrote:
>>>> I'm not a huge fan of adding *one* odd line breaking the 80 column
>>>> recommendation to any file. I like to be able to fit multiple
>>>> windows side by side in a meaningful way. Also, I don't like having
>>>> a shitload of emptiness on my screen, which is what happens when some
>>>> lines are longer and you want to see it all. I strongly believe that
>>>> the 80 column rule/recommendation is still as valid as it ever was.
>>>> It's just hard to read longish lines; there's a reason newspapers
>>>> columns are quite narrow...
>>>>
>>>> Same comment for the envelope-detector (3/18).
>>>>
>>>> You will probably never look at these files again, but *I* might have
>>>> to revisit them for one reason or another, and these long lines will
>>>> annoy me when that happens.
>>>
>>> Initially I posted it with 80-characters wrap. Then I received a comment
>>> - better to stick to the new 100, as checkpatch accepts it.
>>>
>>> Now you write, better to go back to 80.
>>>
>>> Maybe then someone else will write to me, better to go to 100.
>>>
>>> And another person will reply, no, coding style still mentions 80, so
>>> keep it at 80.
>>>
>>> Sure guys, please first decide which one you prefer, then I will wrap it
>>> accordingly. :)
>>>
>>> Otherwise I will just jump from one to another depending on one person's
>>> personal preference.
>>>
>>> If there is no consensus among discussing people, I find this 100 line
>>> more readable, already got review, checkpatch accepts it so if subsystem
>>> maintainer likes it, I prefer to leave it like this.
>>
>> I'm not impressed by that argument. For the files I have mentioned, it
>> does not matter very much to me if you and some random person think that
>> 100 columns might *slightly* improve readability.
>>
>> Quoting coding-style
>>
>>   Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks,
>>   unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does
>>   not hide information.
>>
>> Notice that word? *significantly*
> 
> Notice also checkpatch change...

How is that relevant? checkpatch has *never* had the final say and its
heuristics can never be perfect. Meanwhile, coding style is talking about
exactly the case under discussion, and agrees with me perfectly.

> First of all, I don't have a preference over wrapping here. As I said,
> I sent v1 with 80 and got a response to change it to 100. You want me
> basically to bounce from A to B to A to B.
> 
>> Why do I even have to speak up about this? WTF?
> 
> Because we all share here our ideas...
> 
>> For the patches that touch files that I originally wrote [1], my
>> preference should be clear by now.
> 
> I understood your preference. There is nothing unclear here. Other
> person had different preference. I told you my arguments that it is
> not reasonable to jump A->B->A->B just because each person has a
> different view. At the end it's the subsystem maintainer's decision as
> he wants to keep his subsystem clean.

Yeah, I bet he is thrilled about it.

Cheers,
Peter