From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932608AbXGXUxr (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:53:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753702AbXGXUxj (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:53:39 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:42649 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750960AbXGXUxi (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:53:38 -0400 Message-ID: <46A666CE.4010905@austin.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:53:34 -0500 From: jschopp User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: Paul Mundt , Andrew Morton , Andy Whitcroft , "Kok, Auke" , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08 References: <740c90243aaa6f6d4640d71230c4fa27@pinky> <46A534EA.6030008@intel.com> <46A5C12B.3080904@shadowen.org> <20070724021526.3d92286b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070724172217.GA10725@linux-sh.org> <46A648C5.5050902@austin.ibm.com> <20070724195908.GF6019@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20070724195908.GF6019@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> So, no we shouldn't separate out CodingStyle because >> >> Better CodingStyle == less bugs >> >> and >> >> Better CodingStyle == more throughput for maintainers > > To some extent yes. > > But extreme codingstyling won't gain you anything. > > Except for long and fruitless discussions. > > If a tool says anything would be wrong with the line of C code > int i, j; > for two loop variables, then the tool is wrong because that's an idiom > every C programmer knows and understands. I'm fine with whatever we decide is acceptable coding style, and changing the tool to match is work I'm willing to do. If we decide declaring multiple variables on one line is bad, except if they are named i,j, or k then that's fine. If we decide declaring 22 variables per line is OK but 23 per line is bad then I'm fine with that. If a check doesn't complain about bad code hundreds of times for every 1 time it complains about good code we will fix the check or remove the check entirely. Andy already removed the multiple variable declaration per line check for the next version for that reason, it complained about arguably good code too often (to be fair many would say int i, j; is bad code). Someday when we get the check fixed to handle sane multiple variable declarations better I'd like to add the check back in so the insane multiple variable declarations gets warned.