On Fri, 2020-08-28 at 11:39 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2020-08-28 09:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > If there is no consensus among discussing people, I find this 100 line > > > > more readable, already got review, checkpatch accepts it so if subsystem > > > > maintainer likes it, I prefer to leave it like this. > > > > > > I'm not impressed by that argument. For the files I have mentioned, it > > > does not matter very much to me if you and some random person think that > > > 100 columns might *slightly* improve readability. > > > > > > Quoting coding-style > > > > > > Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks, > > > unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does > > > not hide information. > > > > > > Notice that word? *significantly* > > > > Notice also checkpatch change... > > How is that relevant? checkpatch has *never* had the final say and its > heuristics can never be perfect. Meanwhile, coding style is talking about > exactly the case under discussion, and agrees with me perfectly. As the checkpatch maintainer, checkpatch is stupid. Using it as a primary argument should never be acceptable. But line lengths from 81 to 100 columns should be exceptions rather than standard use. Any named maintainer of actual code determines the style for that code. Style consistency and use of kernel standard mechanisms should be the primary goals here.
