Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:52:27 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch cr 2/4] [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall v7 |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:09:29 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org> wrote: > > > > > > > + get_random_bytes(&cookies[i][j], > > > > > + sizeof(cookies[i][j])); > > > > > > > > ugly line break. > > > > > > > > > > Why? Looks pretty good to me. But sure I'll change it. > > > > It's ugly because it serves no purpose other than pacifying > > checkpatch and makes the code *uglier*. > > No it doesn't. For 80-col displays the code is *already > wrapped*. And that wrapping to column 0 is vastly worse than > the above.
Have you actually checked how this actual line would look like in an 80 cols terminal, if not broken up? I have, it's exactly 80 cols so it looks just fine.
( It was probably broken up when it was longer and then left this way - making things permanently worse not just by the linebreak but also by the unnecessary curly braces around the inner loop. )
But more importantly, even if the line was genuinely longer, how many people are looking at things in an 80-col display? By my experience, from looking at what kinds of terminals kernel people use, it's below 1%. (I was one of the last ones holding out because text consoles are so much faster than just about any usable xterm app - but I switched to a larger terminal some two years ago.)
Shouldnt't we concentrate on the 99% case which gets uglified by the systematic linebreaks?
Also, there are clearly cases where breaking the line intelligently improves things. Such as:
+ /* An example of output and arguments */ + printf("pid1: %6d pid2: %6d FD: %2d FILES: %2d VM: %2d FS: %2d " + "SIGHAND: %2d IO: %2d SYSVSEM: %2d INV: %2d\n", + pid1, pid2, + sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_FILE, fd1, fd2), + sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_FILES, 0, 0), + sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_VM, 0, 0), + sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_FS, 0, 0), + sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_SIGHAND, 0, 0), + sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_IO, 0, 0), + sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_SYSVSEM, 0, 0), + + /* This one should fail */ + sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_TYPES + 1, 0, 0));
this is vastly more readable because the arguments are lined up vertically not just at the beginning but nicely tabulated along the way.
Oh, and note that
Breaking lines is a tool that should be used on a case by case basis, not a hard limit.
> If we want to increase the standard to (say) 96 cols then > fine, I'd be happy with that. But until we do that we should > not create such a gruesome mess for those who use 80 cols.
The kernel has *already* become a gruesome mess for 80 col users long ago. That was the main reason why I stopped using 80 col terminals two years ago ...
So lets stop the pretense.
> > It's a disease. When checkpatch tells you "this line is too > > long" then consider it a code cleanliness warning! > > Well yes, if it can be fixed by other means then great.
Yes it can.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |