[PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: Be less strict about 80 character limit

[PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: Be less strict about 80 character limit

[Peter Maydell]

Relax the wording about line lengths a little bit; this goes with the
checkpatch changes to warn at 100 characters rather than 80.

(Compare the Linux kernel commit bdc48fa11e46f8; our coding style is
not theirs, but the rationale is good and applies to us too.)

Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
---
 CODING_STYLE.rst | 9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CODING_STYLE.rst b/CODING_STYLE.rst
index 8b13ef0669e..7bf4e39d487 100644
--- a/CODING_STYLE.rst
+++ b/CODING_STYLE.rst
@@ -85,8 +85,13 @@ Line width
 Lines should be 80 characters; try not to make them longer.
 
 Sometimes it is hard to do, especially when dealing with QEMU subsystems
-that use long function or symbol names.  Even in that case, do not make
-lines much longer than 80 characters.
+that use long function or symbol names. If wrapping the line at 80 columns
+is obviously less readable and more awkward, prefer not to wrap it; better
+to have an 85 character line than one which is awkwardly wrapped.
+
+Even in that case, try not to make lines much longer than 80 characters.
+(The checkpatch script will warn at 100 characters, but this is intended
+as a guard against obviously-overlength lines, not a target.)
 
 Rationale:
 
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: Be less strict about 80 character limit

[Markus Armbruster]

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> Relax the wording about line lengths a little bit; this goes with the
> checkpatch changes to warn at 100 characters rather than 80.
>
> (Compare the Linux kernel commit bdc48fa11e46f8; our coding style is
> not theirs, but the rationale is good and applies to us too.)
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> ---
>  CODING_STYLE.rst | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/CODING_STYLE.rst b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> index 8b13ef0669e..7bf4e39d487 100644
> --- a/CODING_STYLE.rst
> +++ b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> @@ -85,8 +85,13 @@ Line width
>  Lines should be 80 characters; try not to make them longer.
>  
>  Sometimes it is hard to do, especially when dealing with QEMU subsystems
> -that use long function or symbol names.  Even in that case, do not make
> -lines much longer than 80 characters.
> +that use long function or symbol names. If wrapping the line at 80 columns
> +is obviously less readable and more awkward, prefer not to wrap it; better
> +to have an 85 character line than one which is awkwardly wrapped.
> +
> +Even in that case, try not to make lines much longer than 80 characters.
> +(The checkpatch script will warn at 100 characters, but this is intended
> +as a guard against obviously-overlength lines, not a target.)
>  
>  Rationale:

Alright, that's much more reasobale than I expected.

Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>

One more thing that might be worth explaining: the width of the text
matters, i.e. line length less indentation.

Re: [PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: Be less strict about 80 character limit

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 11:29:40AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Relax the wording about line lengths a little bit; this goes with the
> checkpatch changes to warn at 100 characters rather than 80.
> 
> (Compare the Linux kernel commit bdc48fa11e46f8; our coding style is
> not theirs, but the rationale is good and applies to us too.)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>

> ---
>  CODING_STYLE.rst | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CODING_STYLE.rst b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> index 8b13ef0669e..7bf4e39d487 100644
> --- a/CODING_STYLE.rst
> +++ b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> @@ -85,8 +85,13 @@ Line width
>  Lines should be 80 characters; try not to make them longer.
>  
>  Sometimes it is hard to do, especially when dealing with QEMU subsystems
> -that use long function or symbol names.  Even in that case, do not make
> -lines much longer than 80 characters.
> +that use long function or symbol names. If wrapping the line at 80 columns
> +is obviously less readable and more awkward, prefer not to wrap it; better
> +to have an 85 character line than one which is awkwardly wrapped.
> +
> +Even in that case, try not to make lines much longer than 80 characters.
> +(The checkpatch script will warn at 100 characters, but this is intended
> +as a guard against obviously-overlength lines, not a target.)
>  
>  Rationale:
>  
> -- 
> 2.20.1

Re: [PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: Be less strict about 80 character limit

[Laurent Vivier]

Le 06/11/2020 à 12:29, Peter Maydell a écrit :
> Relax the wording about line lengths a little bit; this goes with the
> checkpatch changes to warn at 100 characters rather than 80.
> 
> (Compare the Linux kernel commit bdc48fa11e46f8; our coding style is
> not theirs, but the rationale is good and applies to us too.)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> ---
>  CODING_STYLE.rst | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CODING_STYLE.rst b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> index 8b13ef0669e..7bf4e39d487 100644
> --- a/CODING_STYLE.rst
> +++ b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> @@ -85,8 +85,13 @@ Line width
>  Lines should be 80 characters; try not to make them longer.
>  
>  Sometimes it is hard to do, especially when dealing with QEMU subsystems
> -that use long function or symbol names.  Even in that case, do not make
> -lines much longer than 80 characters.
> +that use long function or symbol names. If wrapping the line at 80 columns
> +is obviously less readable and more awkward, prefer not to wrap it; better
> +to have an 85 character line than one which is awkwardly wrapped.
> +
> +Even in that case, try not to make lines much longer than 80 characters.
> +(The checkpatch script will warn at 100 characters, but this is intended
> +as a guard against obviously-overlength lines, not a target.)
>  
>  Rationale:
>  
> 

Applied to my trivial-patches branch.

Thanks,
Laurent