On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 15:27:43 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 06:17:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > ... > > + __builtin_choose_expr(__typecheck(val, lo) && __typecheck(val, hi) &&\ > > + __typecheck(hi, lo) && __is_constexpr(val) &&\ > > + __is_constexpr(lo) && __is_constexpr(hi), \ > > + __clamp(val, lo, hi), \ > > + __clamp_once(val, lo, hi, __UNIQUE_ID(__val), \ > > __UNIQUE_ID(__lo), __UNIQUE_ID(__hi))); }) > > ...but this one becomes less readable. I think checkpatch is always a > recommendation than requirement. I would leave at least the last as is, but > formally I think the entire patch is a churn to satisfy controversial > recommendation. This wasn't really a checkpatch thing. I looked at the code in an 80-col window and nearly died. It wasn't *necessary* to make it look so bad in 80 cols, so why do it?
