[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: Be less strict about 80 character limit
From: |
Michael S. Tsirkin |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] CODING_STYLE.rst: Be less strict about 80 character limit |
Date: |
Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:48:06 -0500 |
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 11:29:40AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Relax the wording about line lengths a little bit; this goes with the
> checkpatch changes to warn at 100 characters rather than 80.
>
> (Compare the Linux kernel commit bdc48fa11e46f8; our coding style is
> not theirs, but the rationale is good and applies to us too.)
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> ---
> CODING_STYLE.rst | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/CODING_STYLE.rst b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> index 8b13ef0669e..7bf4e39d487 100644
> --- a/CODING_STYLE.rst
> +++ b/CODING_STYLE.rst
> @@ -85,8 +85,13 @@ Line width
> Lines should be 80 characters; try not to make them longer.
>
> Sometimes it is hard to do, especially when dealing with QEMU subsystems
> -that use long function or symbol names. Even in that case, do not make
> -lines much longer than 80 characters.
> +that use long function or symbol names. If wrapping the line at 80 columns
> +is obviously less readable and more awkward, prefer not to wrap it; better
> +to have an 85 character line than one which is awkwardly wrapped.
> +
> +Even in that case, try not to make lines much longer than 80 characters.
> +(The checkpatch script will warn at 100 characters, but this is intended
> +as a guard against obviously-overlength lines, not a target.)
>
> Rationale:
>
> --
> 2.20.1