Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:25:49 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000000000000000e (reset_prng_context) |
| |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:07:01 +0800 Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 03:11:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Except that such a high density of coding-style errors is an indication > > that the code was not closely and critically reviewed by an experienced > > kernel developer. > > > > > Every damn single warning in this case is about whitespace or 80 column limit. > > > > > > Every damn single one! > > Indeed, I apologise for reviewing the code on a monitor that is wider > than yours. If only we could make sure that all Linux developers > used smaller monitors then the code quality would surely improve! >
Remaining within 80 cols is a big deal indeed for those who choose to use, or who are forced to use 80-col displays. Try resizing to 70 cols for a while, see how you get on.
And that's the point: the utility to you (and me) of using >80 cols is much less than the loss of utility to those who are stuck with 80 cols. That's why we have a standard.
me, I'd be perfectly happy with upping that standard to 96 cols but I seem unable to get anyone else to chew on that bait so shrug. But for the above reasons we _do_ need to have a standard and to stick to it.
(I mean it - try the 70 col experiment!)
| |