On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:14:11AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:31:26PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > ... > > > > > + get_device(&chip->dev); > > > > > + chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release; > > > > > + chip->devs.devt = > > > > > + MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES); > > > > > > Isn't this less than 100 chars? > > > > Still best kept under 80 if 'reasonable'? > > > > Really it is just split in the wrong place: > > chip->devs.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), > > chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES); > > > Well it looks crap IMHO. Would be more reasonable to have it in a single > like. And it is legit too, since it is accepted by checkpatch. > > You might break the lines within 80 chars if it is somehow "logically" > consistent. FWIW, I've become kind of tired of the style wishywashyness I've mostly been happy to accept anything that clang-format spits out for ordinary C constructs. It is good enough and universally usable. If devs don't have it linked to their editor to format single expression or format selected blocks, they are missing out :) The community consensus on style is quite unclear. Is 1 or 2 above the majority preference? Does this case fall under the new "use more than 80 cols if it improves readability?" I have no idea. Frankly, for most people writing driver code, if they consistently use clang-format their work will be alot better than if they try to do it by hand. It takes a lot of experiance to reliably eyeball something close to the kernel style.. Jason
