On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 04:00:40PM +0000, Ian Abbott wrote: > On 21/02/17 11:18, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > >Checkpatch emits multiple WARNING: Avoid multiple line dereference. > >Removing these warnings will result in line over 80 warnings being > >introduced. However, > > > >Documentation/process/coding-style.rst: "Statements longer than 80 > >columns will be broken into sensible chunks, unless exceeding 80 > >columns significantly increases readability and does not hide > >information" > > > >Exceeding the 80 columns limit helps readabilty when it means we > >don't have to break apart dereferences. > > > >Remove line breaks from the middle of struct variable member > >dereferences. Introduce new line over 80 checkpatch warnings. > > > >Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx> > >--- > > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/adl_pci9118.c | 3 +-- > > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/cb_pcidas64.c | 19 ++++++------------- > > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/dt3000.c | 3 +-- > > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/jr3_pci.c | 3 +-- > > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/ni_atmio.c | 4 ++-- > > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/ni_labpc_common.c | 3 +-- > > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/ni_mio_common.c | 3 +-- > > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/rtd520.c | 3 +-- > > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/s626.c | 11 ++++------- > > 9 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > This patch ought to be split up by driver. Also, we're bound to get > follow-up patches from people due to lines exceeding 80 columns. I wast hesitant to send this patch set in when I completed it because of this issue you mention. Is this series worth pursuing or is it two steps forward one step back? If it is worth doing I'm happy to break it up by driver and re-submit. thanks, Tobin. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
