Re: [PATCH 01/03] staging: dgap: fix a few more 80+ lines as reported by checkpatch

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 09:19:08AM -0500, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> >Function arguments line up:
> >
> >				memcpy(ch->ch_sniff_buf + ch->ch_sniff_in, p,
> >				       r);
> >
> 
> As you say below, "Breaking the lines up like this isn't ideal".
> This one I feel should have been left as is. It seems to me that
> breaking the line like above should only be done, like if r was 8
> chars or more? Even if p was also on the other side of col 80, I
> would normally leave p and r both alone?

There isn't a firm rule on this.  I suggest leave it until the last
thing and decide at the end.

We always apply 80 character limit patches in the end, and sometimes
they aren't beautiful.  It's too hard to try debate it all the time.
I'm only criticizing these patches because it seems like you are in it
for the long haul.  If it was a one off patch then we'd just merge it.

regards,
dan carpenter

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux