On Wednesday 5 March 2025 08:40:51 CET Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2025-03-04 at 16:22 +0100, Jérôme Pouiller wrote: > > > > Patchwork also reports two warnings that I am going to ignore: > > > > - "Target tree name not specified in the subject", I assume it > > is "wireless-next", but in the doubt I prefer to refrain. > > It should be wireless-next for anything that isn't fixes for the current > cycle, and please do add it - without it the checker won't always be > able to pick up the patches to test them: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/ec3a3d891acfe5ed8763271a1df4151d75daf25f.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/__;!!N30Cs7Jr!X-PjgfbhIZWbgAa9xgbQsoUtAFxrhIPOL3GoEq_3Nan4ktwxzvTu7V17Q3HSxfYgjtdupGn3xRoIJwxLu9f0CcZx3Ys$ > > > - Lines are larger then 80 columns. Checkpatch.pl now accepts up > > to 100 columns. I am not aware any local exception in net/, right? > > It looks like that's not documented > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html__;!!N30Cs7Jr!X-PjgfbhIZWbgAa9xgbQsoUtAFxrhIPOL3GoEq_3Nan4ktwxzvTu7V17Q3HSxfYgjtdupGn3xRoIJwxLu9f0sNiJZZA$ ), but I had a > conversation with Jakub about this in the past and he prefers to have > the checks still at 80 because people were, in his telling, abusing it > in a way and making really long lines for no good reason. > > I'm not going to be super strict about it, but I'd encourage everyone > who sees that warning to see if they can do better. > > In this particular case, it's just a comment, so could trivially be > wrapped, but I'm not going to complain about 85 columns. If someone's > going to 100 columns with (text) comments though then I think that'd > raise some eyebrows. Narrower text is easier to read anyway. Thank you for the detailed answer. I will send a new version in a couple of days. Thus the various robots have time to test it. -- Jérôme Pouiller
