On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 09:27:02PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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. A. I would not mind if it was already merged. Since it isn't, I don't see the point not fixing it. > 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. B. I need to maintain this, once it's merged. C. A smaller diff for a critical bug fix. I actually allow style compromises for fixes to be backported *when* it makes the overall diff smaller. D. Has more odds to make future changes smaller as the whole thing is in a single code line. > 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.. For me it gives a framework to review patches in multiple subsystems. If I have to constantly think whether to allow this and that shift from the kernel coding style, it makes the whole process for me more fuzzy and chaotic. As I said (A), it would not be end of the world if this had been merged already. I also want to state that I do sometimes make mistakes when reviewing code, and am happy to take critique from that :-) > Jason /Jarkko
