On Tue, 2020-12-22 at 14:12 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 08:08:20PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 13:27 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 20:09 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:05:04PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > Also, given the ever increasing average identifier length, strict > > > > > adherence to 80 columns is sometimes just not possible without silly > > > > > visual gymnastics. The kernel now has quite a lot of 30+ character > > > > > length function names, constants, and structs. > > > > > > > > maybe checkpatch should warn for identifiers that are 30+ characters > > > > long? address the problem at its source .. > > > > > > Hard to know when to warn as patches could just add uses of already > > > existing names and emitting warnings for those would just be annoying. > > > > > > Maybe something that tests long identifier additions of > > > defines/functions/macros/structs but not their uses and maybe only > > > then in patches and not files. > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > Anyone care that this should be added or not added to checkpatch? > > It is pretty useless. Maybe so, if only because I chose a high value for the max id length to avoid controversy. I would prefer something like 20. > What we need is a patch that doesn't make people > uselessly add overly long lines against the intent of the coding style > document. I have submitted a pretty reasonable one, and I'm open to > alternatives, but we need to to stop people submitting code that does > not fit the coding style all the time because checkpatch doesn't > complain. Having checkpatch complain about > 80 column lines didn't stop patches before, likely it wouldn't stop patches now. Emitting yet more messages for trivial lines > 80 columns is also against the intent of the commit that changed the line length maximum. commit bdc48fa11e46f867ea4d75fa59ee87a7f48be144 checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate 80-column warning The effect of your patch might as well revert the checkpatch portion of that commit. I think that's not a great idea for the reason in the commit message.
