On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > Well, it could have been done in the other way: > > - ret = sscanf (buf, "0x%lx - 0x%lx", &start_addr, &end_addr); > + ret = sscanf(buf, "0x%lx - 0x%lx", > + &start_addr, &end_addr); > > Just an example that the limit itself is usually not a problem > but its literal interpretation is.. What? Your version is no better. In the above case it doesn't matter, but I've had grep's that fail due to people splitting the actual string etc, which just drives me wild. We fixed that to allow checkpatch to skip those warnings, but the fact is, the fundamnetal problem has always been the "80 character" part. I don't think any kernel developers use a vt100 any more. And even if they do, I bet they curse the "24 lines" more than they curse the occasional 80+ character lines. I'd be ok with changing the warning to 132 characters, which is another perfectly fine historical limit. Or we can split the difference, and say "ok, 106 characters is too much". I don't care. But 80 characters is causing too many idiotic changes. There are way worse problems in many patches than long lines. Too complex expressions. Too deep indentation. Pure crap code. People seem to get way too hung up on ".. but at least it passes checkpatch". Linus -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
