On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:59:59PM -0400, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:24:49PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:05:07PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 08:46 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > Regardless of the long-standing debate over line width, checkpatch > > > > should not warn about it by default. > > > > > > I'm not getting involved here. > > > > > > I don't care much one way or another. > > > > > > I did submit a patch where I ignored 80 > > > columns recently and I was told to try > > > again by the maintainer. > > > > I'm not asking you to get involved in the Great Line Length Debate; > > that's why I didn't attempt to patch CodingStyle or similar. However, I > > think it makes sense for *checkpatch* to stop emitting this warning. > > > > I'm hoping that Greg will chime in, as the maintainer of staging and the > > recipient of a huge number of checkpatch-motivated patches. > > I have no problem with the existing checkpatch.pl tool and it calling > out 80 columns as a problem that needs to be fixed. So I don't like > this patch at all.
I'd like to stop seeing patches go by that produce heavily over-wrapped code that becomes less readable; it's far easier to fix checkpatch than to tell people to ignore its false positives. How would you feel about a patch that flagged long lines with a warning in patch mode, but not in file mode? - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/