All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: joe@perches.com (Joe Perches)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] staging: bcm2835-audio: bcm2835.h: fix line length coding style issue
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:38:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1487381908.2198.14.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADRb1HaEAFv-gswjvtf4=gr8H9r6bh_Q_jcp8pN6FEaJBo8QQg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 20:32 -0500, Adan Hawthorn wrote:
> Thanks, Joe.
> 
> Is this to say that scripts/checkpatch.pl should be updated to some
> higher column limit?  I have made these cleanup changes before in a
> like manner.

Hard to say.

There could be some sensitivity to long identifier
name lengths added to checkpatch, but < 80 column
line length is still currently "strongly preferred".

I don't care much one way or another if it's 80
or 100 or something else as long as it's context
appropriate.

Awhile ago, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Thu, 2016-12-15@18:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > In fact, I thought we already upped the check-patch limit to 100?
> > 
> > Nope, CodingStyle neither.
> > 
> > Last time I tried was awhile ago.
> 
> Ok, it must have been just talked about, and with the exceptions for
> strings etc I may not have seen as many of the really annoying line
> breaks lately.
> 
> I don't mind a 80-column "soft limit" per se: if some code
> consistently goes over 80 columns, there really is something seriously
> wrong there. So 80 columns may well be the right limit for that kind
> of check (or even less).
> 
> But if we have just a couple of lines that are longer (in a file that
> is 3k+ lines), I'd rather not break those.
> 
> I tend use "git grep" a lot, and it's much easier to see function
> argument use if it's all on one line.
> 
> Of course, some function calls really are *so* long that they have to
> be broken up, but that's where the "if it's a couple of lines that go
> a bit over the 80 column limit..." exception basically comes in.
> 
> Put another way: long lines definitely aren't good. But breaking long
> lines has some downsides too, so there should be a balance between the
> two, rather than some black-and-white limit.
> 
> In fact, we've seldom had cases where black-and-white limits work well.
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Adan Hawthorn <adanhawthorn@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>,
	Michael Zoran <mzoran@crowfest.net>,
	devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] staging: bcm2835-audio: bcm2835.h: fix line length coding style issue
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:38:28 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1487381908.2198.14.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADRb1HaEAFv-gswjvtf4=gr8H9r6bh_Q_jcp8pN6FEaJBo8QQg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 20:32 -0500, Adan Hawthorn wrote:
> Thanks, Joe.
> 
> Is this to say that scripts/checkpatch.pl should be updated to some
> higher column limit?  I have made these cleanup changes before in a
> like manner.

Hard to say.

There could be some sensitivity to long identifier
name lengths added to checkpatch, but < 80 column
line length is still currently "strongly preferred".

I don't care much one way or another if it's 80
or 100 or something else as long as it's context
appropriate.

Awhile ago, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 18:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > In fact, I thought we already upped the check-patch limit to 100?
> > 
> > Nope, CodingStyle neither.
> > 
> > Last time I tried was awhile ago.
> 
> Ok, it must have been just talked about, and with the exceptions for
> strings etc I may not have seen as many of the really annoying line
> breaks lately.
> 
> I don't mind a 80-column "soft limit" per se: if some code
> consistently goes over 80 columns, there really is something seriously
> wrong there. So 80 columns may well be the right limit for that kind
> of check (or even less).
> 
> But if we have just a couple of lines that are longer (in a file that
> is 3k+ lines), I'd rather not break those.
> 
> I tend use "git grep" a lot, and it's much easier to see function
> argument use if it's all on one line.
> 
> Of course, some function calls really are *so* long that they have to
> be broken up, but that's where the "if it's a couple of lines that go
> a bit over the 80 column limit..." exception basically comes in.
> 
> Put another way: long lines definitely aren't good. But breaking long
> lines has some downsides too, so there should be a balance between the
> two, rather than some black-and-white limit.
> 
> In fact, we've seldom had cases where black-and-white limits work well.
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-18  1:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-17 20:16 [PATCH 1/5] staging: bcm2835-audio: bcm2835.h: fix block comment warning Nathan Howard
2017-02-17 20:16 ` Nathan Howard
2017-02-17 20:16 ` [PATCH 2/5] staging: bcm2835-audio: bcm2835.h: fix printk coding style issue Nathan Howard
2017-02-17 20:16   ` Nathan Howard
2017-02-17 20:16 ` [PATCH 3/5] staging: bcm2835-audio: bcm2835.h: fix macro " Nathan Howard
2017-02-17 20:16   ` Nathan Howard
2017-02-17 20:16 ` [PATCH 4/5] staging: bcm2835-audio: bcm2835.h: fix volatile " Nathan Howard
2017-02-17 20:16   ` Nathan Howard
2017-02-17 23:04   ` Joe Perches
2017-02-17 23:04     ` Joe Perches
2017-02-18  0:41     ` Adan Hawthorn
2017-02-18  0:41       ` Adan Hawthorn
2017-02-17 20:16 ` [PATCH 5/5] staging: bcm2835-audio: bcm2835.h: fix line length " Nathan Howard
2017-02-17 20:16   ` Nathan Howard
2017-02-18  1:17   ` Joe Perches
2017-02-18  1:17     ` Joe Perches
2017-02-18  1:32     ` Adan Hawthorn
2017-02-18  1:32       ` Adan Hawthorn
2017-02-18  1:38       ` Joe Perches [this message]
2017-02-18  1:38         ` Joe Perches
2017-02-18  2:08         ` Adan Hawthorn
2017-02-18  2:08           ` Adan Hawthorn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1487381908.2198.14.camel@perches.com \
    --to=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.