Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:15:47 +0100 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling |
| |
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:07:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > > > + size_t size = numa_distance_cnt * numa_distance_cnt * > > + sizeof(numa_distance[0]); > > > + memblock_x86_reserve_range(phys, phys + phys_size, > > + "TMP NUMA DIST"); > > > + memblock_x86_free_range(__pa(phys_dist), > > + __pa(phys_dist) + phys_size); > > These silly linebreaks are really annoying. Please ignore checkpatch when the > solution makes the result so much uglier. Having line width up to 90-95 is still > fine.
I'm letting all the printks format strings go over the limit (whatever that may be) but all these files already mostly conform to 80-column limit so I'm a bit hesitant to break it for codes. Hey, but it's ultimately your call.
FWIW, I'm not really decided about 80 vs. whatever column issue. Having a common limit definitely helps a lot but it seems almost impossible to agree on one - is it 90, 95, 100 or 120? Given that, it almost seems just sticking to 80 might be the only doable solution.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |