On 10 December 2014 at 11:58, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rather than having a list of "privileged" code that gets special > exceptions, > I don't think it is privileged, but as checkpatch docs say, if you have a good case for ignoring a guideline in a given case - ok > why not just increase the checkpatch line length limit beyond the > arbitrary 80-char limit? > We can start that thread again but it went in huge loops last time with no agreement between large camps on suggestions between 120 or 80 chars > We're not coding on punch cards any more. :) > That was the argument form the 120 crowd :) > > Raising the limit to say 100 chars would eliminate the vast majority of > these spurious issues. I know I've had to torture the buffer code in > several places to comply with this procrustean "standard". > If we get a quorum - why not change it, I have no issue. > > Bill > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Agreed, this is one of the exceptions. >> >> On 10 December 2014 at 04:22, Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 10 December 2014 at 09:13, Anders Roxell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > On 2014-12-09 17:56, Mike Holmes wrote: >>> >> Has checkpatch issues >>> >> >>> >> Using patch: >>> >> /home/mike/incoming/lng-odp_PATCH_3-3_test_odp_timer.h_cunit_test.mbox >>> >> git am >>> >> /home/mike/incoming/lng-odp_PATCH_3-3_test_odp_timer.h_cunit_test.mbox >>> >> Patch applied, building... >>> >> WARNING: line over 80 characters >>> >> #238: FILE: test/validation/odp_timer.c:185: >>> >> + CU_FAIL("Failed to set timer (tooearly/toolate)"); >>> >> >>> >> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 359 lines checked >>> >> >>> >> NOTE: Ignored message types: DEPRECATED_VARIABLE NEW_TYPEDEFS >>> >> >>> >> 0001-test-odp_timer.h-cunit-test.patch has style problems, please >>> review. >>> > >>> > Do we want to split up this printout? >>> No. >>> >>> > If you're not familiar with the code and you run the validation tests >>> > and got this failure printed out. I would grep for that failure message >>> > (the string) in the code too see how I got there. >>> Exactly. >>> >>> > And if we split this string up into multiple rows just to make >>> > check-patch happy it will make it harder to search after the failure >>> > message then right? >>> Correct. >>> And I even think checkpatch for this reason will complain if you split >>> the string. >>> >>> -- Ola >>> >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > Anders >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Mike Holmes* >> Linaro Sr Technical Manager >> LNG - ODP >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lng-odp mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp >> >> > -- *Mike Holmes* Linaro Sr Technical Manager LNG - ODP
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
