On 29-07-08 15:02, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:39:05 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
On 28-07-08 17:37, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Well, I still prefer folding lines to fit 80-column - of course only if the result is somewhat reasonable and more readable.
Which it absolutely never is, because if it were, the original programmer would've already formatted it that way.
... only if the original author respected the standard CodingStyle. Many old ALSA codes are not in that category.
Honestly, I don't mind much to keep them as they are now, even though checkpatch grumbles, if the author (or the heir) wants to keep it intentionally even after reading the CodingStyle text carefully...
I'm also definitely not speaking about things such as function headers which needlessly walk of to the far right, but specifically about stuff where the formatting _not_ inside 80 cols made things much easier to read. In this case, my specific comments were about:
1) mixer element macros
Many spots in this patchset, but for IMO most clearly bad example:
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2008-July/009272.html
See the cmi8330 ones.
Not only do these kind of changes muddy up a patch, they muddy up the result as well. Hate it...
2) debug printks
For one example here, see:
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2008-July/008978.html
/snd_wss_debug
Bad, bad, triply bad.
3) trivial switches, although I don't feel hugely strongly about those.
Example:
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2008-July/009314.html
/snd_wss_chip_id
...
All of these, I strongly feel, are examples where checkpatch needs and deserves to be fully ignored.
Rene.