Re: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm_chip

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:14:11AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:31:26PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > +	get_device(&chip->dev);
> > > > > +	chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release;
> > > > > +	chip->devs.devt =
> > > > > +		MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
> > > 
> > > Isn't this less than 100 chars?
> > 
> > Still best kept under 80 if 'reasonable'?
> > 
> > Really it is just split in the wrong place:
> > 	chip->devs.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt),
> > 					chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
> 
> 
> Well it looks crap IMHO. Would be more reasonable to have it in a single 
> like. And it is legit too, since it is accepted by checkpatch.
> 
> You might break the lines within 80 chars if it is somehow "logically"
> consistent.

FWIW, I've become kind of tired of the style wishywashyness I've
mostly been happy to accept anything that clang-format spits out for
ordinary C constructs.

It is good enough and universally usable. If devs don't have it linked
to their editor to format single expression or format selected blocks,
they are missing out :)

The community consensus on style is quite unclear. Is 1 or 2 above the
majority preference? Does this case fall under the new "use more than
80 cols if it improves readability?" I have no idea.

Frankly, for most people writing driver code, if they consistently use
clang-format their work will be alot better than if they try to do it
by hand. It takes a lot of experiance to reliably eyeball something
close to the kernel style..

Jason