From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40850) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZiCN-0005bd-Vb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:26:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZiCJ-0000ac-T2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:26:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59932) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZiCJ-0000aN-Mu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:26:11 -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> <55EDB601.7080903@redhat.com> <87r3mayxb1.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> From: John Snow Message-ID: <55F05DA1.9040008@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:26:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r3mayxb1.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 , Paolo Bonzini Cc: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost , Andreas Faerber On 09/07/2015 01:05 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Paolo Bonzini writes: >=20 >> On 07/09/2015 17:23, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>> Apart from copy-n-pasting, there is also the problem that you can ru= n >>>> "checkpatch.pl -f" on a whole file ... it would also be ugly to sudd= enly >>>> 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 i= n >> other ways (e.g. different strictness for checkpatch.pl vs. >> checkpatch.pl -f). >=20 > Yup. >=20 >> That said, and even though Thomas obviously hasn't read the previous >> discussion, :) I do believe that 76 characters is too strict a limit. >=20 > It's not a strict limit, it's a warning. The strict limit is 90. >=20 The problem is that checkpatch returns non-zero for warnings, so this interrupts my workflow; this means that many of my "patch testing" scripts will now "fail" due to the shortened limit. Unless there are documented error codes for checkpatch -- e.g. {0: fine, 1: warnings, 2: errors, 3+: script-errors } I could then update my scripts to tolerate warnings, but this still seems like a pain to me. >> 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. >=20 > 78 gives one level of quoting, and two-way diffs. >=20 --=20 =97js