Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-08 Thread Joe Perches
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 14:16 +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > Joe Perches writes: > > >> So, could we have the localized readability when it makes sense, > >> and the default rules when nothing else applies? > > > > Then the question becomes how local. > > The answer seems easy to me: as much as

Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-06 Thread Krzysztof Hałasa
Joe Perches writes: >> So, could we have the localized readability when it makes sense, >> and the default rules when nothing else applies? > > Then the question becomes how local. The answer seems easy to me: as much as it's needed to get the best readability. If that means 4 or 2 custom forma

Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-06 Thread Joe Perches
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 08:07 +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > Joe Perches writes: > > Nah, you're not an extremist, you're just preferring narrowly > > localized readability over global consistency. > > > > That's fine and all, until you come up to LCONSOLE_ERROR_MSG > > type use which blows the ni

Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-06 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 08:07:52AM +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > Joe Perches writes: > > > Nah, you're not an extremist, you're just preferring narrowly > > localized readability over global consistency. > > > > That's fine and all, until you come up to LCONSOLE_ERROR_MSG > > type use which bl

Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-05 Thread Krzysztof Hałasa
Joe Perches writes: > Nah, you're not an extremist, you're just preferring narrowly > localized readability over global consistency. > > That's fine and all, until you come up to LCONSOLE_ERROR_MSG > type use which blows the nice old formatting up. > > So what I suggested is just a simple consist

Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-03 Thread Joe Perches
On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 12:58 +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > Joe Perches writes: > > > -#define LCONSOLE(mask, format, ...) CDEBUG(D_CONSOLE | (mask), format, ## > > __VA_ARGS__) > > -#define LCONSOLE_INFO(format, ...) CDEBUG_LIMIT(D_CONSOLE, format, ## > > __VA_ARGS__) > > -#define LCONSOLE_W

Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-03 Thread Krzysztof Hałasa
Joe Perches writes: > -#define LCONSOLE(mask, format, ...) CDEBUG(D_CONSOLE | (mask), format, ## > __VA_ARGS__) > -#define LCONSOLE_INFO(format, ...) CDEBUG_LIMIT(D_CONSOLE, format, ## > __VA_ARGS__) > -#define LCONSOLE_WARN(format, ...) CDEBUG_LIMIT(D_CONSOLE | D_WARNING, > format, ## __VA_

Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-02 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 23:20 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 09:59 +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > > Mario Bambagini writes: > > > > > Defines have been written in more than one line to match the 80-character > > > rule. This error has been fixed 6 times in this file. > > > The

Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-01 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 09:59 +0200, Krzysztof Hałasa wrote: > Mario Bambagini writes: > > > Defines have been written in more than one line to match the 80-character > > rule. This error has been fixed 6 times in this file. > > The file is fully compliant with respect to the coding rules now. > >

Re: [PATCH] defines modified to match the 80-char rule

2015-07-01 Thread Krzysztof Hałasa
Mario Bambagini writes: > Defines have been written in more than one line to match the 80-character > rule. This error has been fixed 6 times in this file. > The file is fully compliant with respect to the coding rules now. Rules, maybe. But is it better, i.e., more readable? > --- a/drivers/st