From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:07:57 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup swiotlb.c a bit Message-Id: <200501061207.57741.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> List-Id: References: <200501060945.12364.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <200501060945.12364.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, January 6, 2005 12:00 pm, David Mosberger wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:50:56 -0800, Jesse Barnes > >>>>> said: > >> > >> It's not opinion, it's reality. Unless someone goes through all > >> the files in the top-level directories and formats them to 80 > >> cols, this won't change. > > Jesse> I'd be happy to do that if you're ok with it. > > Eh, I'm talking about linux/kernel/* etc, so it's really Andrew and > Linus who'd have to be OK with it. > > If you can fix those, I'd be happy to adjust the ia64 files to fit > within 80 cols. Really? In my experience the core files are generally pretty good (every now and then a long line creeps in, but there aren't that many that I can see). Any big offenders that really bug you? > I don't particularly like 100 cols. I'd be happy if all (major) Linux > kernel files fit into 80 cols, it's just that in reality, you need 100 > cols to look at most important kernel files. Well if you don't like them either (that makes none that I know of), shouldn't we at least fixup the ia64 bits, regardless of what happens with the core kernel files? Jesse