From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
tglx@linutronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:36:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110302103631.GA25608@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110302101547.GA3319@htj.dyndns.org>
* Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not really decided about 80 vs. whatever column issue.
It only really matters when the underlying code structure is clearly inefficient:
too many indentations, etc.
but printks or function calls that go beyond 80 cols a bit do not deserve to be
line-broken.
> Having a common limit definitely helps a lot but it seems almost
> impossible to agree on one - is it 90, 95, 100 or 120? Given that, it
> almost seems just sticking to 80 might be the only doable solution.
The problem is that many sensible code structures break with a limit of 80.
So i'd suggest being permissive when the code is fine (printks, function calls at
the first or second level of indentation, etc.) and being conservative when the
underlying code is not fine.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-02 10:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-24 14:51 [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm] Tejun Heo
2011-02-24 14:52 ` [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm] bootmem,x86: cleanup changes Tejun Heo
2011-02-24 19:08 ` [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm] Yinghai Lu
2011-02-24 19:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-24 19:28 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-24 19:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-24 19:46 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-24 22:46 ` [patch] x86, mm: Fix size of numa_distance array David Rientjes
2011-02-24 23:30 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-02-24 23:31 ` David Rientjes
2011-02-25 9:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-25 9:03 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-25 10:58 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-25 11:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-02-25 9:11 ` [PATCH x86-mm] x86-64, NUMA: " Tejun Heo
2011-03-01 17:18 ` [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm] David Rientjes
2011-03-01 18:25 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-01 22:19 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 9:17 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:04 ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-03-02 10:15 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:36 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2011-03-02 10:25 ` [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] " Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:39 ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Better explain numa_distance handling Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:42 ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 14:31 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-02 14:30 ` [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling David Rientjes
2011-03-02 15:42 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 21:12 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 21:36 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-03 20:07 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-04 14:32 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-03 20:04 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-03 20:00 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-04 15:31 ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Don't assume phys node 0 is always online in numa_emulation() handling Tejun Heo
2011-03-04 21:33 ` David Rientjes
2011-03-05 7:50 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-05 15:50 ` [tip:x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Don't assume phys node 0 is always online in numa_emulation() tip-bot for Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 16:16 ` [PATCH x86/mm UPDATED] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 16:37 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 16:46 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 16:55 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 18:52 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 19:02 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 19:06 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 19:13 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 20:32 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 20:57 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 21:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-03 6:17 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-10 18:46 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 8:29 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 8:33 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 15:48 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 15:54 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 18:02 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 18:19 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 18:25 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 18:29 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 18:45 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 9:31 ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Don't call numa_set_distanc() for all possible node combinations during emulation Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 15:42 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-11 16:03 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-11 19:05 ` Yinghai Lu
2011-03-02 10:43 ` [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling Ingo Molnar
2011-03-02 10:53 ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 10:59 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110302103631.GA25608@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).