On 10 December 2014 at 11:58, Bill Fischofer <bill.fischo...@linaro.org>
wrote:
> Rather than having a list of "privileged" code that gets special
> exceptions,
>
I don't think it is privileged, but as checkpatch docs say, if you have a
good case for ignoring a guideline in a given case - ok
> why not just increase the checkpatch line length limit beyond the
> arbitrary 80-char limit?
>
We can start that thread again but it went in huge loops last time with no
agreement between large camps on suggestions between 120 or 80 chars
> We're not coding on punch cards any more. :)
>
That was the argument form the 120 crowd :)
>
> Raising the limit to say 100 chars would eliminate the vast majority of
> these spurious issues. I know I've had to torture the buffer code in
> several places to comply with this procrustean "standard".
>
If we get a quorum - why not change it, I have no issue.
>
> Bill
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Mike Holmes <mike.hol...@linaro.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed, this is one of the exceptions.
>>
>> On 10 December 2014 at 04:22, Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljed...@linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 December 2014 at 09:13, Anders Roxell <anders.rox...@linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On 2014-12-09 17:56, Mike Holmes wrote:
>>> >> Has checkpatch issues
>>> >>
>>> >> Using patch:
>>> >> /home/mike/incoming/lng-odp_PATCH_3-3_test_odp_timer.h_cunit_test.mbox
>>> >> git am
>>> >> /home/mike/incoming/lng-odp_PATCH_3-3_test_odp_timer.h_cunit_test.mbox
>>> >> Patch applied, building...
>>> >> WARNING: line over 80 characters
>>> >> #238: FILE: test/validation/odp_timer.c:185:
>>> >> + CU_FAIL("Failed to set timer (tooearly/toolate)");
>>> >>
>>> >> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 359 lines checked
>>> >>
>>> >> NOTE: Ignored message types: DEPRECATED_VARIABLE NEW_TYPEDEFS
>>> >>
>>> >> 0001-test-odp_timer.h-cunit-test.patch has style problems, please
>>> review.
>>> >
>>> > Do we want to split up this printout?
>>> No.
>>>
>>> > If you're not familiar with the code and you run the validation tests
>>> > and got this failure printed out. I would grep for that failure message
>>> > (the string) in the code too see how I got there.
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> > And if we split this string up into multiple rows just to make
>>> > check-patch happy it will make it harder to search after the failure
>>> > message then right?
>>> Correct.
>>> And I even think checkpatch for this reason will complain if you split
>>> the string.
>>>
>>> -- Ola
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Anders
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Mike Holmes*
>> Linaro Sr Technical Manager
>> LNG - ODP
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lng-odp mailing list
>> lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
>>
>>
>
--
*Mike Holmes*
Linaro Sr Technical Manager
LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
