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
