Re: [PATCH] Drop 80-character limit in

From: Janakiram Sistla
Date: Thu Dec 17 2009 - 11:31:22 EST

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>> Well, it could have been done in the other way:
>> -                     ret = sscanf (buf, "0x%lx - 0x%lx", &start_addr, &end_addr);
>> +                     ret = sscanf(buf, "0x%lx - 0x%lx",
>> +                                  &start_addr, &end_addr);
>> Just an example that the limit itself is usually not a problem
>> but its literal interpretation is..
> What? Your version is no better.
> In the above case it doesn't matter, but I've had grep's that fail due to
> people splitting the actual string etc, which just drives me wild. We
> fixed that to allow checkpatch to skip those warnings, but the fact is,
> the fundamnetal problem has always been the "80 character" part.
> I don't think any kernel developers use a vt100 any more. And even if they
> do, I bet they curse the "24 lines" more than they curse the occasional
> 80+ character lines.
> I'd be ok with changing the warning to 132 characters, which is another
> perfectly fine historical limit. Or we can split the difference, and say
> "ok, 106 characters is too much". I don't care. But 80 characters is
> causing too many idiotic changes.
> There are way worse problems in many patches than long lines. Too complex
> expressions. Too deep indentation. Pure crap code. People seem to get way
> too hung up on ".. but at least it passes checkpatch".
I truely agree on this.It will better if we can change the warning for
100+ as suggested.This cleans the code alot infact.

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