On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 17:50 +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 3 October 2014 17:27, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, I guess a single patch is indeed OK. I have few nit-picks, though. > > > > On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 18:13 +0300, Tanya Brokhman wrote: > >> - ubi_err("'ubi_io_read_ec_hdr()' returned unknown code %d", err); > >> + ubi_err(ubi, > >> + "'ubi_io_read_ec_hdr()' returned unknown code %d", err); > >> return -EINVAL; > > > > I think it is fine if the line is long in these cases, let's keep the > > message on the same line, this split does not contribute to better > > readability, quite the opposite, in my opinion. > > > > One line: > > ubi_err(ubi, "long line") > > > > Multiple lines: > > ubi_err(ubi, "long line, > > parameters) > > You should discuss that with checkpatch team, because ARAIR it will > complain about "long line" with any other parameter in the same line. I respect checkpatch.pl, and uniformity / consistency, but in this particular case I put my maintainer hat on and say that for this kernel subsystem it is fine, because the maintainer will be more efficient in maintaining this code when the code is a bit mere readable for him. Artem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html