On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:34:32AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:31 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:13:08AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 08:43 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 02:11:38PM +0900, Jaewan Kim wrote:
> > > > > BTW, can I expect you to review my changes for further patchsets?
> > > > > I sometimes get conflicting opinions (e.g. line limits)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I was the one that said "you can use 100 columns", if that's not
> > > > ok in the networking subsystem yet, that was my fault as it's been that
> > > > way in other parts of the kernel tree for a while.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hah. Maybe that's my mistake then, I was still at "use 80 columns where
> > > it's simple, and more if it would look worse" ...
> >
> > It was changed back in 2020:
> > bdc48fa11e46 ("checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate 80-column warning")
> >
> > seems to take a while to propagate out to all the subsystems :)
>
> Ah no, I was aware of that, but I guess we interpret this bit
> differently:
>
> +Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks,
> +unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does
> +not hide information.
>
>
> Here, I would've said something like:
>
> + if (request->request_lci && nla_put_flag(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_REQ_ATTR_REQUEST_LCI))
> + return -ENOBUFS;
>
> can indeed "be broken into sensible chunks, unless ..."
>
> Just like this one already did:
>
> + if (request->request_civicloc &&
> + nla_put_flag(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_REQ_ATTR_REQUEST_CIVICLOC))
> + return -ENOBUFS;
>
>
> Personally I think the latter is easier to read because scanning the
> long line for the logical break at "&&" is harder for me, but YMMV.
I think the latter is also better, so all is good :)
