From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: michael Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:18:59 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] USB style patch In-Reply-To: <20081126120709.53A62834B020@gemini.denx.de> References: <20081126104540.GA28899@gandalf.sssup.it> <3efb10970811260315y72417986uf4348dbb3cbd3028@mail.gmail.com> <492D31AC.2070006@gandalf.sssup.it> <20081126120709.53A62834B020@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <492D4CC3.9020107@gandalf.sssup.it> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear michael, > > In message <492D31AC.2070006@gandalf.sssup.it> you wrote: > >>>> - printf(" NOTE: this command is obsolete and will be phased out\n"); >>>> - printf(" please use 'usb storage' for USB storage devices information\n\n"); >>>> + printf(" NOTE: this command is obsolete and will be" >>>> + " phased out\n"); >>>> + printf(" please use 'usb storage' for USB storage devices" >>>> + " information\n\n"); >>>> >>>> >>> I believe it is good to keep line lengths below 80 characters in >>> general, but code should not become less readable by this. >>> In case of printf lines, it becomes more difficult to 'grep' for the >>> strings printed in the terminal to find them back in the code. >>> So, I am very curious about the point of view Wolfgang about this >>> rule. (How strict does this rule need to be applied?) >>> >>> >> I prefer to break the line but I wait for Walfgang answer. >> > > I tend to go with Remy here, but tyher eis another (even better) > option: do what the warning says, and remove the obsolete code. > > At the end, can I break to 80 char and "..remove the obsolete code"? It is nessary a grep with the full message? There are a lot of situation when the grep is impossible. > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > > Regards Michael