Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000000000000000e (reset_prng_context)

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:07:01 +0800 Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 03:11:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Except that such a high density of coding-style errors is an indication
> > that the code was not closely and critically reviewed by an experienced
> > kernel developer.
> > 
> > > Every damn single warning in this case is about whitespace or 80 column limit.
> > > 
> > > Every damn single one!
> 
> Indeed, I apologise for reviewing the code on a monitor that is wider
> than yours.  If only we could make sure that all Linux developers
> used smaller monitors then the code quality would surely improve!
> 

Remaining within 80 cols is a big deal indeed for those who choose to
use, or who are forced to use 80-col displays.  Try resizing to 70 cols
for a while, see how you get on.

And that's the point: the utility to you (and me) of using >80 cols is
much less than the loss of utility to those who are stuck with 80 cols.
That's why we have a standard.

me, I'd be perfectly happy with upping that standard to 96 cols but I
seem unable to get anyone else to chew on that bait so shrug.  But for the
above reasons we _do_ need to have a standard and to stick to it.

(I mean it - try the 70 col experiment!)