From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756472Ab0JIQPi (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:15:38 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:36210 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756224Ab0JIQPh convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:15:37 -0400 Subject: Re: + softirq-cleanup-preempt-check.patch added to -mm tree From: Peter Zijlstra To: Jiri Slaby Cc: Ingo Molnar , akpm@linux-foundation.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4CAB92E9.7060509@suse.cz> References: <201010051905.o95J5BrS013873@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20101005193833.GA16493@elte.hu> <4CAB92E9.7060509@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:15:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1286640927.1891.13.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 23:04 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >> +static inline void softirq_preempt_check(struct softirq_action *h, > >> + int prev_count) > > > > unnecessary linebreak. > > How unnecessary is this linebreak: > $ wc -c > static inline void softirq_preempt_check(struct softirq_action *h, int > prev_count) > 83 > > People, including me, still work with 80-col terminals. What I can > tolerate are undivided strings, because it sucks if one cannot grep for > anything from the log I actually work on ~350 character wide terminals, but then, I vert-split it 4-ways so I end up with ~85 chars per column.. :-) But I agree the line should be split, I however much prefer the form: static inline void softirq_preempt_check(struct softirq_action *h, int prev_count)