Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 22:45:12 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fix error return get/set_native_max functions |
| |
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/
| |