On 3 October 2014 18:19, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
I'm fine with that :) I think it may be even worth bringing to the
checkpatch / CodingStyle to allow such lines.
--
Rafał
--
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
