From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53234) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXOPk-0002U8-Ne for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 03:59:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXOPg-0005s5-I0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 03:58:59 -0400 Received: from mx5-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.37]:58948) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXOPg-0005rw-9o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 03:58:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 03:58:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <763282314.776277.1470815935631.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87mvkl2hfb.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> References: <1470757664-25161-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1470757664-25161-3-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <874m6t5d39.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <1550519450.770774.1470812913274.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <87mvkl2hfb.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] checkpatch: bump most warnings to errors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: thuth@redhat.com, famz@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Markus Armbruster" > To: "Paolo Bonzini" > Cc: thuth@redhat.com, famz@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 9:48:24 AM > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/3] checkpatch: bump most warnings to errors > > Paolo Bonzini writes: > > >> Paolo Bonzini writes: > >> > >> > This only leaves a warning-level message for extra-long lines, which > >> > are relatively common and cause patchew to send email that will likely > >> > be ignored. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > >> > >> Are we ready to give up on illegibly long lines? > > > > We have other levels of code review than checkpatch. 80 chars can be > > illegibly short in some circumstances where 83 or 84 are enough. > > Isn't that addressed neatly in your patch? It has a soft and a hard > limit. Exceeding the hard limit is an error, exceeding the soft limit > is a warning. I rather liked that. If I remember correctly, the only > disagreements were about the value of the soft limit. Yes, indeed. I can respin the patch then. Paolo