Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 06:15, Gan Qixin <ganqi...@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> Modify the rule that limit the length of lines according to the following >> ideas: >> >> --add a variable max_line_length to indicate the limit of line length and >> set it to 100 by default >> --when the line length exceeds max_line_length, output warning information >> instead of error >> --if/while/etc brace do not go on next line whether the line length exceeds >> max_line_length or not
The commit message fails at explaining *why*. A controversial change like this should not be committed without proper rationale. >> Signed-off-by: Gan Qixin <ganqi...@huawei.com> >> --- >> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 18 +++++------------- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > For the code changes > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > but we also need to update our coding style documentation > to match. I'll send out a patch with some proposed text. I disagree with the coding style change. The current "warn at 80, error at 90" is a compromise. It's the result of a lengthy argument. Why reopen it? > Side note: the kernel version of this checkpatch change > (kernel commit bdc48fa11e46f867) suppresses all line-length > warnings for the "--file" use case. Do we care about that? The kernel patch at least has a decent commit message.
