Jones Syue 薛懷宗 <joness...@qnap.com> 於 2024年3月11日 星期一寫道：
> This patch replaces the 78 "-" prints with 75 "-". And replace the 80
> columns summary line with 77 columns. ("%s" is considered as two chars
> and should be filled with whitespace " ", so 77 = 75 + 2)
>
> Consider this scenario: a patch contains the output of "bloat-o-meter" to
> clarify about the size impact/diff, and when we validate this patch with
> "~/linux/scripts/checkpatch.pl" (from linux kernel source tree), which
> checks for style violations, it might complain about line wrapped like:[1]
> WARNING: \
> Possible unwrapped commit description (prefer a maximum 75 chars per line)
>
> The 1st complaint is seperation line with 78 '-' prints, and the 2nd
> complaint is summary line "(add/remove ... Total: n bytes)". Although
> these two warnings are not harmful at all, it is helpful and makes life
> easier if this kind of patch (with "bloat-o-meter" output) could be passed
> by 'checkpatch.pl' in the first place without manually inspection.
>
> [1] line wrapped at 75 columns:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Jones Syue <joness...@qnap.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - fix nit/typo with correct word 'scenario'
> v1: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2024-March/090656.html
> ---
> scripts/bloat-o-meter | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
I was curious. Is there a reason for BusyBox's bloat-o-meter script not to
keep in sync with the version that comes in the Linux kernel source?
I occasionally use the bloat-o-meter from the Linux kernel to compare even
BusyBox binaries. There shouldn't be any functional differences between the
two versions.
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
