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: <YkHZRzbi54t0pZkO@thelio-3990X>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:50:31 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To:     Eugene Shalygin <eugene.shalygin@...il.com>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, darcagn@...tonmail.com,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] hwmon: (asus-ec-sensors) implement locking via the
 ACPI global lock

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 04:44:24PM +0200, Eugene Shalygin wrote:
> > First, you can go up to 100 columns nowadays. Second, the column
> > limit is waived for strings because it is more important to not
> > split them. If you _still_ want to stick with 80 columns, sorry,
> > no, I don't have a solution. Your problem is with the editor,
> > not with kernel formatting rules.
> 
> Thank you, Günter, 100 is better than 80 and the string fits. I
> wonder, why is the .clang-format file not updated and still says the
> limit is 80?

Because the documentation still says that 80 is preferred:

https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#breaking-long-lines-and-strings

"The preferred limit on the length of a single line is 80 columns.

Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks,
unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does
not hide information."

There have been a few different times that people have tried to update
the .clang-format file, which ultimately leads back to that paragraph in
the documentation.

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200610125147.2782142-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/r/03d462504887401ffbcdb58a392ad01923a2be7b.camel@perches.com/

A somewhat recent patch to try and update the documentation to match
checkpatch was posted but did not really go anywhere:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/d7130556-a8a4-76c0-0fde-b6b1439efda6@infradead.org/

Cheers,
Nathan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ