On 09/09/2015 19:22, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 7 September 2015 at 18:05, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: >>> That said, and even though Thomas obviously hasn't read the previous >>> discussion, :) I do believe that 76 characters is too strict a limit. >> >> It's not a strict limit, it's a warning. The strict limit is 90. > > I tend to bounce patches on review for checkpatch warnings... > I don't make much distinction between a warning and an error.
Doing something about this is the point of this series. As a start, it enables a few more warnings (patch 3) so that maintainers start seeing them and get used to them. Some may reject patches altogether based on the warnings, some may not. With just a few exceptions (tabs, line lengths, braces) it makes a lot of sense to fix warnings in the whole tree with a single sweeping change. If we agree about this, we can upgrade warnings to error at the time of the fix, or even before. Ultimately, warnings should be used only for things that are _really_ subjective, so that we can aim at an error-free (but not warning-free) "checkpatch -f". Paolo
