Jörn Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I strongly disagree. Machine-generated warnings are a great way of
> quickly locating a large amount of questionable code in an otherwise
> overwhelming haystack. It doesn't even matter much, which warnings you
> look for. Almost all code checkers find t
On Fri, 22 February 2008 23:28:58 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMO the line length overruns make good warnings. Not as in "here's a cheap
> > way to get more changesets", but as in "that code might have other problems
> > nearby" kind of heuristics.
>
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, David Newall wrote:
>
> > which talks more about what matters - too deep indentation.
>
> What's too deep? Is the following too deep?
It would be, if it weren't artificially so, for violates several kernel
coding standards, one being that the "case" labels indent with the
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, David Newall wrote:
>
>> Do you actually get 80 columns wide on it?
>>
>
> Do people really care that deeply?
> ...
> And do I find lines longer than 80 charactes unreadable? Hell no.
>
I care, yes. I've found my code looks much prettier, wi
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> static void blah(void)
> {
> if (foo) {
> bar;
> bar2;
> return;
> }
> if (this) {
> that;
> that2;
> return;
> }
> /* yay, got rid of two levels of indent! */
>
Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sat 2008-02-23 23:08:58, David Newall wrote:
>
>> Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri 2008-02-22 23:44:09, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>>>
>>>
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Zaurus is one example, second is small
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, David Newall wrote:
>
> Do you actually get 80 columns wide on it?
Do people really care that deeply?
I still sometimes use small terminal windows - for a while I had my
default terminal come up as 100x40, but I'm back to the standard 80x24,
and while I often resize them
On Feb 21 2008 22:37, Ray Lee wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Linus Torvalds
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So I'd be happier with warnings about deep indentation (but how do you
>> count it? Will people then try to fake things out by using 4-space indents
>> and then "deep" indentation
On Sat 2008-02-23 23:08:58, David Newall wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Fri 2008-02-22 23:44:09, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Zaurus is one example, second is small screen where you need big font
> >>> to keep it readable (x6
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Come on, are you doing Linux kernel development on PDA?
>
> I review patches on it, sometimes, yes.
I take it the "sometimes" is the key word :-)
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body
Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2008-02-22 23:44:09, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>
>> Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Zaurus is one example, second is small screen where you need big font
>>> to keep it readable (x60 on desk).
>>>
>> Come on, are you doing Linux kernel de
On Fri 2008-02-22 23:44:09, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Zaurus is one example, second is small screen where you need big font
> > to keep it readable (x60 on desk).
>
> Come on, are you doing Linux kernel development on PDA?
I review patches on it, so
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:59:35PM +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Sure - because email is not C code.
>
> Actually you don't "read" C code, word by word, as you read books - do
> you?
If it's decently written - sure, why not? Unfortunately, more common case
is somewhere between the writing on
Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, yes, I have the screen estate for very long lines, but I find that
> long lines require more effort to read (that very much includes leading
> whitespace). Also, since long lines are rare (and they should be, if you
> nest too deep you have other is
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Zaurus is one example, second is small screen where you need big font
> to keep it readable (x60 on desk).
Come on, are you doing Linux kernel development on PDA?
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ker
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will people then try to fake things out by using 4-space indents
> and then "deep" indentations will look like just a couple of tabs?)
There is no point in faking it as it's only advisory, it's to help the
author who should be free to ignore the advic
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMO the line length overruns make good warnings. Not as in "here's a cheap
> way to get more changesets", but as in "that code might have other problems
> nearby" kind of heuristics.
Sure, it does. However the human looking at the code is far better at
spott
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:20:12PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> 2) you might know that Deja-Vu moment when you look at a new patch that
>> has been submitted to lkml and you have a strange, weird "feeling"
>> that there's something wrong about the patch.
>> It's
On Fri 2008-02-22 01:05:26, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If a driver is full of lines of length >80, that's a problem.
>
> I'm not sure.
> We all have more than 80-chars wide displays for years, don't we? The
No.
Zaurus is one example, second is small
On Thu 2008-02-21 14:08:55, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:01:24 +0200
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [ Linus Added to the To: since I want to hear his opinion on this
> > issue. ]
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:28:55PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > > Th
Ingo Molnar wrote:
2) you might know that Deja-Vu moment when you look at a new patch that
has been submitted to lkml and you have a strange, weird "feeling"
that there's something wrong about the patch.
It's totally subconscious, and you take a closer look and a few
seconds l
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a patch or if a file has a clean _style_, bugs and deeper
> structural problems often stand out like a sore thumb. But if the
> code is peppered with random style noise, it's a lot harder (for me
> at least
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 04:17:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Even with e-mail, I can easily show over 200 characters wide with a
> large font (say 11pt) but find it harder to read emails that don't
> nicely wrap at 78. So much so that I often find myself not reading the
> mail, or restyling i
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of checkpatch "fixes" are
> anything but. That mainly concerns fixing overlong lines (where the
> "fixed" version is usually worse than the original), but it's been
> true for some other warnings too.
that
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:55:03AM +1030, David Newall wrote:
> Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > There is a reason to limit line length: scientific research has shown
> > that readability of regular texts is optimal for a line length between
> > 55 and 65 characters.
>
> Putting aside the point that we'
On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 00:55 +1030, David Newall wrote:
> Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > There is a reason to limit line length: scientific research has shown
> > that readability of regular texts is optimal for a line length between
> > 55 and 65 characters.
>
> Putting aside the point that we're tal
Bart Van Assche wrote:
> There is a reason to limit line length: scientific research has shown
> that readability of regular texts is optimal for a line length between
> 55 and 65 characters.
Putting aside the point that we're talking code, not regular text, I've
heard that said before and I don't
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:46 AM, David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> > Perhaps we should increase line length limit, 132 should be fine.
> > Especially useful with long printk() lines and long arithmetic
> > expressions.
>
> Yes; or even longer. 80 characters mi
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:05:26 +0100
Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If a driver is full of lines of length >80, that's a problem.
>
> I'm not sure.
> We all have more than 80-chars wide displays for years, don't we? The
Even a vt132 ser
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:29:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So I'd be happier with warnings about deep indentation (but how do you
> > count it? Will people then try to fake things out by using 4-space indents
> > and then "deep" indentation
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'd be happier with warnings about deep indentation (but how do you
> count it? Will people then try to fake things out by using 4-space indents
> and then "deep" indentations will look like just a couple of tabs?)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I'd be happier with warnings about deep indentation (but how do you
> count it? Will people then try to fake things out by using 4-space indents
> and then "deep" indentations will look like just a couple of tabs?) and
> against complex expression
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 03:23:45AM +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ... if your style is lousy. I agree that situation with printks is
> > not normal in that respect and I certainly have no love for the
> > checkpatch nonsense, but pressure to keep the fu
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Al Viro wrote:
>
> ... if your style is lousy. I agree that situation with printks is
> not normal in that respect and I certainly have no love for the
> checkpatch nonsense, but pressure to keep the fucking nesting depth
> low is a Good Thing(tm).
I do agree, but that has
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... if your style is lousy. I agree that situation with printks is
> not normal in that respect and I certainly have no love for the
> checkpatch nonsense, but pressure to keep the fucking nesting depth
> low is a Good Thing(tm).
Indeed. Unfortunately it is
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:16:45PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of checkpatch "fixes" are
> >> anything but. That mainly concerns fixing overlong lines
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps we
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Every time this discussion comes up, people point out that it remains
> highly common to open multiple 80-column terminal windows, making the
> 80-column limit still highly relevant in modern times.
I guess only because of the limit :-)
Raise the limit, t
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of checkpatch "fixes" are
>> anything but. That mainly concerns fixing overlong lines
>>
>
> Perhaps we should increase line length limit, 132 should be fine.
> Especially useful w
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:30:37PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:01:24PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > BTW: Greg, you are Cc'ed for your joke in [3]...
>
> > [3] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/12/427
>
> That was not a joke, I ment it. Do you have proof that the majority o
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If a driver is full of lines of length >80, that's a problem.
I'm not sure.
We all have more than 80-chars wide displays for years, don't we? The
Every time this discussion comes up, people point out that it remains
highly com
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:31:44PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:38:14 +0100
> Krzysztof Halasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I'm personally of the opinion that a lot of checkpatch "fixes" are
> > > anything but. That main
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If a driver is full of lines of length >80, that's a problem.
I'm not sure.
We all have more than 80-chars wide displays for years, don't we? The
problem is not the number of characters but code which is too
complex and which may sometimes have too many l
Here are some PCI patches against your 2.6.25-rc2 git tree.
They are a collection of PCI quirk additions, build fixes, and some PCI
hotplug fixes.
Please pull from:
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/pci-2.6.git/
The full patches will be sent to the linux-pci mailing li
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:01:24PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> BTW: Greg, you are Cc'ed for your joke in [3]...
> [3] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/12/427
That was not a joke, I ment it. Do you have proof that the majority of
patches going into the kernel tree are not reviewed by at least 2
peo
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Is it really intended to merge drivers without _any_ kind of review?
I'd really rather have the driver merged, and then *other* people can send
patches!
The thing is, that's what merging really means - people can work on it
sanely together. Before
> Is it really intended to merge drivers without _any_ kind of review?
>
> This driver even lacks a basic "please fix the > 250 checkpatch errors" [1]
> and similar low hanging fruits that could easily be spotted and then
> fixed by the submitter within a short amount of time.
Just to be cl
[ Linus Added to the To: since I want to hear his opinion on this issue. ]
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:28:55PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > This driver should really have gotten some review before being included
> > in the kernel.
>
> > Even a simple checkpatch run finds more than > 250 sty
47 matches
Mail list logo
