From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45164) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZkkg-0005kx-R3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:09:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZkkc-00075M-Q7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:09:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42044) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZkkc-00075G-KJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:09:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:09:43 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20150909190943.GD5920@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> References: <1441619584-17992-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1441619584-17992-3-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <55ED8EA0.6040400@redhat.com> <55ED9DA9.80208@redhat.com> <55EDA144.8000505@redhat.com> <87lhci5k3q.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <55EDB601.7080903@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55EDB601.7080903@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] CODING_STYLE, checkpatch: update line length rules List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Thomas Huth , Markus Armbruster , Andreas Faerber , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 06:06:25PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 07/09/2015 17:23, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > Apart from copy-n-pasting, there is also the problem that you can run > > > "checkpatch.pl -f" on a whole file ... it would also be ugly to suddenly > > > have (much) more warnings here. > > > > Feature. If you run checkpatch on a whole file, you obviously do it to > > find its ugly spots. Lines longer than 76 characters qualify. > > Based on the statistics, half of QEMU's files has at least one 76-79 > character line. The noise from checkpatch.pl -f is actually a worse > thing than the cut-and-paste, but that's something that can be fixed in > other ways (e.g. different strictness for checkpatch.pl vs. > checkpatch.pl -f). Why exactly it's considered noise? I fail to see why would somebody use checkpatch.pl -f if they don't want to see all warnings about the whole file (including the lines that they didn't write). If somebody doesn't want to see them, they can simply run checkpatch.pl on the diff instead of using -f. -- Eduardo