[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201112210315.02171.lindner_marek@yahoo.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:15:01 +0800
From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@...oo.de>
To: b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [PATCH] batman-adv: checkpatch cleanup - remove lines longer than 80 chars
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 03:02:09 David Miller wrote:
> From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@...oo.de>
> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:59:41 +0800
>
> > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 02:32:30 David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@...oo.de>
> >> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:38:24 +0800
> >>
> >> > The long line was introduced with b26e478f8f.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@...oo.de>
> >>
> >> I'm not applying this.
> >>
> >> I tell people to make sure arguments line up correctly to the
> >> openning parenthesis on the previous line, and that is what is
> >> happening here.
> >
> > I am not against lining up the arguments but what about checkpatch ? Are
> > we going to ignore the complaints or is this line limit about to be
> > changed ?
>
> Refactor the code so that both constraints can be satisfied.
>
> Is this so hard to understand?
Well, my crystal ball did not unveil that a checkpatch complaint you silently
introduced would mean somebody else has to refactor the code. Guess I have to
get a replacement unit.
Cheers,
Marek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists