Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] lpfc: Fix rport leak.

[James Smart <james.smart@avagotech.com>]

That's good to know.  We have a fair amount of existing strings that are 
split, so I don't want to retrofit those. But, on future submits, we'll 
keep the string on a single line.

Thanks

-- james


On 5/27/2015 5:32 PM, Sebastian Herbszt wrote:
> James Smart wrote:
>> Sebastian,
>>
>> Re: more than 1 space between a type declaration and a variable name - I
>> do not believe that's a hard requirement. It fully passes checkpatch.
>> Yes, consistent style use (aligning all variable names at same offset,
>> or always 1) would be good - but code has been there so long with
>> althernate styles it doesn't really matter at this point.  I did clean
>> up those in your last review as I needed to do a mod for the LS_RJT
>> behavior. But... this seems like a nit.   I did promise Christoph that I
>> would pick a good point and retrofit the sources for all sparse warnings
>> - and still owe him.
>>
>> Re: Checkpatch and string splitting. I understand we aren't passing
>> checkpatch for that rule, but joining them would have checkpatch
>> flagging us for beyond 80 character lines.
> checkpatch seems to just follow what's mentioned in CodingStyle "Chapter 2:
> Breaking long lines and strings":
>
> "However, never break user-visible strings such as printk messages, because
> that breaks the ability to grep for them."
>
> The tool is actually smart enough to not flag such lines as LONG_LINE.
>
>> I'd much rather have the
>> splits and keep the indenting for readability. We have also had this
>> error quite a bit in the past and believe we have been grandfathered as
>> there's a lot of this already.
>>
>> James B - any comments on the above ?
>>
>> -- james s
> Sebastian