From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266563AbUBMKlH (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:41:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266901AbUBMKlH (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:41:07 -0500 Received: from nsmtp.pacific.net.th ([203.121.130.117]:42902 "EHLO nsmtp.pacific.net.th") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266563AbUBMKlD (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:41:03 -0500 From: Michael Frank To: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: PATCH, RFC: 2.6 Documentation/Codingstyle Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:50:41 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: Andrew Morton , Giuliano Pochini , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200402130615.10608.mhf@linuxmail.org> <200402131749.19758.mhf@linuxmail.org> <402CA267.4090202@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <402CA267.4090202@cyberone.com.au> X-OS: KDE 3 on GNU/Linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402131850.41339.mhf@linuxmail.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 13 February 2004 18:09, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Michael Frank wrote: > > >On Friday 13 February 2004 17:10, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > >> > >>Yes, 80 cols sucks and the world would be a better place had CodingStyle > >>mandated 96 columns five years ago. But it didn't happen. > >> > >> > > > >As to "five years ago", what about review the coding style situation before > >starting 2.7: > > > >In view of better hardware, increasing linelength a little to 96 could be > >considered without increasing the number of indentation levels. > > > > > > I hope not, I usually use 80 columns. Email's using 80 columns. > And lines start becoming difficult for the eyes to follow as they > get longer. Maybe this isn't so much a problem with C code due to > indentation and the sparseness of the lines. > Just for consideration and nesting should _not_ be increased ;) 80 is quite OK but has not much margin and is asking for more lines times with nesting of 3. 0 1 2 3 4 |<81 printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning this is a long printk with " "3 parameters a: %u b: %u " "c: %u \n", a, b, c); next_statement; printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning this is a long printk with " "3 parameters a: %u b: %u "c: %u \n", a, b, c); next_statement; 96 is not excessive and will reduce linecount and often makes things more readable. 0 1 2 3 4 |<97 printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning this is a long printk with 3 parameters " "a: %u b: %u "c: %u \n", a, b, c); next_statement;