Re: [RFC PATCH] checkpatch: Make the 80-character limit a --strict check only

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:38:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 12:34 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 12:28:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 12:18 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > The 80-character limit is not a hard-and-fast rule, nor should it be
> > > > applied blindly by people running checkpatch and fixing its warnings.
> > > > Sometimes it's better to violate the 80-character "limit" in the name of
> > > > readability, and when it isn't, it's often better to refactor into a
> > > > function or otherwise restructure the code rather than just finding
> > > > increasingly awkward places to break lines.
> > > > 
> > > > Thus, change checkpatch's LONG_LINE warning to a --strict CHK instead.
> > > > Anyone wanting to use checkpatch to check for this can easily enough
> > > > enable --strict or turn on LONG_LINE explicitly, but it shouldn't be
> > > > part of the default warnings.
> > > 
> > > I don't agree with this.
> > > 
> > > CodingStyle says:
> > > ----------------------
> > > The limit on the length of lines is 80 columns and this is a strongly
> > > preferred limit.
> > > ----------------------
> > 
> > Which is the subject of much controversy and extensive discussion, and
> > the consensus on the list (including by many maintainers) frequently
> > differs from that.
> 
> Been there, had that discussion.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/18/3

I see many positive responses in that thread, from Linus and others, and
very little negativity (mostly quibbles about implementation, not about
the overall proposal).  What was the problem?

In particular:
> I'll happily remove the checkpatch.pl limit entirely, and ask people to
> try to use common sense, though.

Between that and the positive responses in this thread, I'd love to see
your proposed patch revived.

- Josh Triplett