From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] drivers/ide: Convert printk(KERN_NOTICE to pr_notice( Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:18:52 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4A11343C.5070809@ru.mvista.com> <200905181550.07723.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:40879 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751382AbZERRSx (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 13:18:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200905181550.07723.bzolnier@gmail.com> (Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz's message of "Mon\, 18 May 2009 15\:50\:07 +0200") Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , Joe Perches , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz writes: >> Though I think most people would agree that the latter is much better, >> no? > > No, it just hides the real issue: I didn't say it's best. Just better :-) >> I think removal (rewording) of this rule has already been agreed upon, >> though not exactly yet codified. > > This is not a strict rule but in 99% cases it shows that the code could > be improved further without >80 chars lines. I don't have the stat numbers handy but the established idea is that since the texts could be up to 80-chars long (and it's a good thing), the printk line needed to output them has to be longer. IOW, breaking the text into pieces is worse. Obviously, that doesn't mean one can't do better. -- Krzysztof Halasa