On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> > This change is okay, thanks.
> > However changing coding style is not...
>
> An interesting remark.
>
> I belong to the people who look at kernel source on a screen
> with 80 columns. Code that is wider and wraps is unreadable.
/me too
> Now of course you might react "buy a better monitor", but in fact
> this restriction leads to cleaner code. There is something wrong
> when code is indented too deeply, and almost always a cleanup is
> possible that splits some inner stuff out as a separate function.
>
> As a side effect of that you'll see in patches from me changes
> that bring the code within the 80-column limit.
I think that mixing such changes with real changes is a bad thing.
> > -static unsigned long idedisk_set_max_address(ide_drive_t *drive, unsigned long addr_req)
> > +static unsigned long
> > +idedisk_set_max_address(ide_drive_t *drive, unsigned long addr_req)
>
> It is a matter of taste precisely which transformation is best
> in order to bring the source within the 80-column limit,
> but having the type on the preceding line is very common
> in the kernel source (and elsewhere), so among the possible
> ways of splitting this line this is a very natural one.
It is not so common in drivers/ide/...
static unsigned long idedisk_set_max_address(ide_drive_t *drive,
unsigned long addr_req)
This format also clearly shows that actual function name suck and should
be shortened :-).
> I am not interested in a discussion about style, but will defend
> the 80-column limit.
Sure, 80-column is a must ;-).
-- Bartlomiej- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:30 EST