| Message ID | 1324377504-20983-1-git-send-email-lindner_marek@yahoo.de |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:38:24 +0800 > The long line was introduced with b26e478f8f. > > Signed-off-by: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> I'm not applying this. I tell people to make sure arguments line up correctly to the openning parenthesis on the previous line, and that is what is happening here. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 02:32:30 David Miller wrote: > From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:38:24 +0800 > > > The long line was introduced with b26e478f8f. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> > > I'm not applying this. > > I tell people to make sure arguments line up correctly to the > openning parenthesis on the previous line, and that is what is > happening here. I am not against lining up the arguments but what about checkpatch ? Are we going to ignore the complaints or is this line limit about to be changed ? Cheers, Marek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:59:41 +0800 > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 02:32:30 David Miller wrote: >> From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> >> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:38:24 +0800 >> >> > The long line was introduced with b26e478f8f. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> >> >> I'm not applying this. >> >> I tell people to make sure arguments line up correctly to the >> openning parenthesis on the previous line, and that is what is >> happening here. > > I am not against lining up the arguments but what about checkpatch ? Are we > going to ignore the complaints or is this line limit about to be changed ? Refactor the code so that both constraints can be satisfied. Is this so hard to understand? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 03:02:09 David Miller wrote: > From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:59:41 +0800 > > > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 02:32:30 David Miller wrote: > >> From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> > >> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:38:24 +0800 > >> > >> > The long line was introduced with b26e478f8f. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> > >> > >> I'm not applying this. > >> > >> I tell people to make sure arguments line up correctly to the > >> openning parenthesis on the previous line, and that is what is > >> happening here. > > > > I am not against lining up the arguments but what about checkpatch ? Are > > we going to ignore the complaints or is this line limit about to be > > changed ? > > Refactor the code so that both constraints can be satisfied. > > Is this so hard to understand? Well, my crystal ball did not unveil that a checkpatch complaint you silently introduced would mean somebody else has to refactor the code. Guess I have to get a replacement unit. Cheers, Marek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 03:15 +0800, Marek Lindner wrote: > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 03:02:09 David Miller wrote: > > From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> > > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:59:41 +0800 > > > > > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 02:32:30 David Miller wrote: > > >> From: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> > > >> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:38:24 +0800 > > >> > > >> > The long line was introduced with b26e478f8f. > > >> > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> > > >> > > >> I'm not applying this. > > >> > > >> I tell people to make sure arguments line up correctly to the > > >> openning parenthesis on the previous line, and that is what is > > >> happening here. > > > > > > I am not against lining up the arguments but what about checkpatch ? Are > > > we going to ignore the complaints or is this line limit about to be > > > changed ? > > > > Refactor the code so that both constraints can be satisfied. > > > > Is this so hard to understand? > > Well, my crystal ball did not unveil that a checkpatch complaint you silently > introduced would mean somebody else has to refactor the code. Guess I have to > get a replacement unit. No-one has to refactor the code. I think David's point is that he's more concerned about proper alignment than having every line under 80 characters. If you want to satisfy the latter constraint, you still have to satisfy the former. Ben.
diff --git a/net/batman-adv/translation-table.c b/net/batman-adv/translation-table.c index ab8dea8..58361ed 100644 --- a/net/batman-adv/translation-table.c +++ b/net/batman-adv/translation-table.c @@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ void tt_global_del(struct bat_priv *bat_priv, * 2) the client roamed to us => we can directly delete * the global entry, since it is useless now. */ tt_local_entry = tt_local_hash_find(bat_priv, - tt_global_entry->common.addr); + tt_global_entry->common.addr); if (!tt_local_entry) { tt_global_entry->common.flags |= TT_CLIENT_ROAM; tt_global_entry->roam_at = jiffies;
The long line was introduced with b26e478f8f. Signed-off-by: Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> --- net/batman-adv/translation-table.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)