On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:53 PM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:40 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > this series fixes a few issues and cleans up the helpers that read from > > or write to kernel space buffers, and ensures that we don't change the > > address limit if we are using the ->read_iter and ->write_iter methods > > that don't need the changed address limit. > > Apart from the "please don't mix irrelevant whitespace changes with > other changes" comment, this looks fine to me. > > And a rant related to that change: I'm really inclined to remove the > checkpatch check for 80 columns entirely, but it shouldn't have been > triggering for old lines even now. > > Or maybe make it check for something more reasonable, like 100 characters. > > I find it ironic and annoying how "checkpatch" warns about that silly > legacy limit, when checkpatch itself then on the very next few lines > has a line that is 124 columns wide > > And yes, that 124 character line has a good reason for it. But that's > kind of the point. There are lots of perfectly fine reasons for longer > lines. > > I'd much rather check for "no deep indentation" or "no unnecessarily > complex conditionals" or other issues that are more likely to be > _real_ problems. But do we really have 80x25 terminals any more that > we'd care about? > Please kill that 80-columns-checkpatch-rule for more human-readability of code. - Sedat -
