[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231117112352.GS250770@thinkpad>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:53:52 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Nirmal Patel <nirmal.patel@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Derrick <jonathan.derrick@...ux.dev>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] PCI: qcom: Clean up ASPM comment
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 12:00:44PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 04:24:04PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 11:48:10AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 04:02:27PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 02:55:51PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > > Break up the newly added ASPM comment so that it fits within the soft 80
> > > > > character limit and becomes more readable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
> > > >
> > > > I think we discussed (80column soft limit for comments) in the past, but I don't
> > > > think breaking here makes the comment more readable.
> > >
> > > The coding style clearly states:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Going beyond 80 chars may sometimes be warranted for code, but the
> > > exception is not intended for comments.
> >
> > Breaking the comment here is indeed making it hard to read. It's just one word
> > that needs to be broken if we go by 80 column limit and I won't prefer that,
> > sorry!
>
> Please read the above quote again, it is as clear as it gets. 80 chars
> is the preferred limit unless (for code) exceeding it *significantly*
Where does it say "code" in the Documentation? As I read it, the doc weighs both
code and comment as "statement".
And how on the world that breaking a single word to the next line improves
readability? I fail to get it :/
> increases readability, which clearly isn't the case here (even if this
> exception applied to comments).
>
> I really don't understand why you keep insisting on this. Just fix your
> editor.
>
May you should fix yours to extend the limit to 100?
But I do not want to get into a spat here. Checkpatch, the tool supposed to
check for the kernel coding style is not complaining and I do not want a patch
that _fixes_ a coding style that is not an issue.
And I do not want to argue more on this. If the PCI maintainers are comfortable
with this patch, they can apply it, but I'm not.
- Mani
> Johan
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
Powered by blists - more mailing lists