[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq18sb07l17.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 22:22:37 -0500
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
brking@...ux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ibmvfc: byte swap login_buf.resp values in
attribute show functions
Tyrel,
> The checkpatch script only warns at 100 char lines these days. To be
> fair though I did have two lines go over that limit by a couple
> characters, there are a couple commit log typos, and I had an if
> keyword with no space after before the opening parenthesis. So, I'll
> happily re-spin.
Please tweak the little things that need fixing and resubmit.
> However, for my info going forward is the SCSI subsystem sticking to
> 80 char lines as a hard limit?
As far as I'm concerned the 80 char limit is mainly about ensuring that
the code is structured in a sensible way. Typesetting best practices
also suggest that longer lines are harder to read. So while I generally
don't strictly enforce the 80 char limit for drivers, I do push back if
I feel that readability could be improved by breaking the line or
restructuring the code.
Use your best judgment to optimize for readability.
Thanks!
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists