On Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:50 pm Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > Miklos Vajna (1):
> > x86/PCI: janitor work in irq.c
>
> Please don't take patches like this.
>
> If it's janitor work, the end result should be better. But it's not. This
> patch is full of stuff like
>
> - for(addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000); addr +=
> 16) { + for (addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000);
> + addr += 16) {
> rt = pirq_check_routing_table(addr);
>
> Which just brings negative value. The code is _harder_ to look at, not
> easier.
>
> The 80-character limit is less important than making code look obvious and
> indentation being readable. Splitting the for(;;) loop just made the
> indentation look like total crap.
>
> I'm fixing it up (since it also caused trivial conflicts), but I'd ask
> people to just ignore that sh*t-for-brains that is the long-line warning
> when trying to fix it may silence a warning, but results in worse code!
Yeah I noticed that too when I did the merge (and in the original patch),
though on my 80 char display it looked like a wash in terms of readability to
me, but even in that case I should have rejected it as noise. Sorry about
that.
Jesse
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
