From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46251) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZYywC-00065w-Rq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 12:06:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZYyw9-0000pj-M3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 12:06:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39547) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZYyw9-0000pQ-Hh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 12:06:29 -0400 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> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <55EDB601.7080903@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 18:06:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87lhci5k3q.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Markus Armbruster , Thomas Huth Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost , Andreas Faerber 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 sudde= nly > > have (much) more warnings here. >=20 > 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). That said, and even though Thomas obviously hasn't read the previous discussion, :) I do believe that 76 characters is too strict a limit. 76 would be great (two levels of email quoting are what you get 99% of the time), and 78 would be nice, but I believe 79 provides the biggest bang for the buck. Paolo