On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 11:33 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:27:11PM +0100, Bas Peters wrote: > > >> @@ -101,8 +101,7 @@ void rtl88eu_phy_rf6052_set_cck_txpower(struct adapter *adapt, u8 *powerlevel) > > >> ptr++; > > >> } > > >> } > > >> - rtl88eu_dm_txpower_track_adjust(&hal_data->odmpriv, 1, &direction, > > >> - &pwrtrac_value); > > >> + rtl88eu_dm_txpower_track_adjust(&hal_data->odmpriv, 1, &direction, &pwrtrac_value); > > > you are introducing one warning to fix one error. line over 80 character. > > > > Isn't that warning more of a guideline, rather than an actual warning? Yes, it is more informational than defect. > You can't fight checkpatch.pl. Sure you can, Ignore it whenever appropriate. It's a pity there are _so_ many people that think checkpatch messages are gospel. > We reject the worst or the worst "break > lines up into smaller chunks" patches where they obviously hurt > readability, but we almost always silence the warning in the end. The > original code in this case was fine. Any line with 30+ char identifiers generally doesn't fit well in 80 char lines. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
