From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760073AbYGPXzL (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:55:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758372AbYGPXy7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:54:59 -0400 Received: from outbound-mail-06.bluehost.com ([69.89.17.206]:49118 "HELO outbound-mail-06.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753307AbYGPXy6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:54:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:X-Identified-User:DomainKey-Status; b=EywaKYTi6dxV4bhYPsX91rDjRvr/c+18TO9yy/3rsoJhvkr6pMWeOF+FeDYs85R8IAZe6xzNrJhQfMU0QVqf0E7XgmM1JggqEx5n61m+ynAeM9cEndAwrJSeCoRCtcNv; From: Jesse Barnes To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [git pull] PCI pull request for 2.6.27 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:54:55 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" References: <200807161639.24289.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807161654.55699.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> X-Identified-User: {642:box128.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.27.49 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} DomainKey-Status: no signature Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:50 pm Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > Miklos Vajna (1): > > x86/PCI: janitor work in irq.c > > Please don't take patches like this. > > If it's janitor work, the end result should be better. But it's not. This > patch is full of stuff like > > - for(addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000); addr += > 16) { + for (addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000); > + addr += 16) { > rt = pirq_check_routing_table(addr); > > Which just brings negative value. The code is _harder_ to look at, not > easier. > > The 80-character limit is less important than making code look obvious and > indentation being readable. Splitting the for(;;) loop just made the > indentation look like total crap. > > I'm fixing it up (since it also caused trivial conflicts), but I'd ask > people to just ignore that sh*t-for-brains that is the long-line warning > when trying to fix it may silence a warning, but results in worse code! Yeah I noticed that too when I did the merge (and in the original patch), though on my 80 char display it looked like a wash in terms of readability to me, but even in that case I should have rejected it as noise. Sorry about that. Jesse