On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:48:10PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> >> @@ -1529,8 +1529,8 @@ static int gen6_drpc_info(struct seq_file *m)
> >>
> >> forcewake_count = READ_ONCE(dev_priv->uncore.fw_domain[FW_DOMAIN_ID_RENDER].wake_count);
> >> if (forcewake_count) {
> >> - seq_puts(m, "RC information inaccurate because somebody "
> >> - "holds a forcewake reference \n");
> >> + seq_puts(m,
> >> + "RC information inaccurate because somebody holds a forcewake reference.\n");
> >
> > And now you break the 80col rule. Blind adherence to checkpatch is impossible.
>
> Have you got any other coding style preferences around the grepping
> of longer message strings from such source code?
I personally use long strings (because they are less hassle to write),
except when they are ridiculously long. But checkpatch complains either
way, so checkpatch itself is not a reason to make a change.
Certainly grepping for a complete seq_printf() is unlikely (i.e. you had
to open the debugfs file to see it, so you must already know where to
look in the code).
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
