On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 20:45 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:55:42AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 10:42 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 08:43:14AM +0200, Fabio Falzoi wrote: > > > > No newline is needed since checkpatch doesn't complain about line longer > > > > than 80 characters for string literals. > > [] > > > The original was correct. > > > > The original was fine. > > > > > There was no need to go over 80 characters > > > just because of a limitation in checkpatch. > > > > How is checkpatch not emitting a message on > > either form a limitation? > > It's not an easily solvable limitation, It's not a limitation at all. > but the original was better than > the new patch. This patch is all like "I've found a way to do something > bad and checkpatch.pl doesn't catch it so woohoo!" I think either form is fine, but because either is fine, it's not useful/better to change either. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
