On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 15:02 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 05:17:42PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 08:42:27 -0800 > > Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 16:28 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 15:08:01 +0000 > > > > George Edward Bulmer <gebulmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This fixes three instances of checkpatch warning: > > > > > WARNING: line over 80 characters > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: George Edward Bulmer <gebulmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Applied, thanks, > > > > > > I believe these are examples of long line conversions > > > that should not be applied. > > > > On this one I disagree. The line breaks don't hurt readability > > so aren't a problem. The benefit is admittedly small, however > > we are adding churn in a fairly safe place - this stuff rarely > > changes. > > They do hurt read > ability. > > Checkpatch.pl should maybe have a special case to not complain if the > last variable in the line is over 40 characters long. I didn't > realize that we had LONG_LINE_COMMENT. Does that mean we don't complain > if comment goes over 80 characters? No. It's just an extra classifier. It means that long lines with comments that exceed 80 columns can be ignored by using the command line argument --ignore=long_line_comment _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
