Re: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at000000000000000e (reset_prng_context)

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Jul 16 2008 - 00:27:25 EST

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:07:01 +0800 Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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!)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at