[Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: comedi: combine split lines for improved readability

[Deepak R Varma]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:34:15PM +0100, Ian Abbott wrote:
> On 19/10/2020 11:57, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:41:14PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, Ian Abbott wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 18/10/2020 20:49, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > > Instructions split on multiple lines can be combined on a single line
> > > > > for improved readability of the code.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <mh12gx2825 at gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    .../staging/comedi/drivers/tests/ni_routes_test.c    | 12 ++++--------
> > > > >    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/tests/ni_routes_test.c
> > > > > b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/tests/ni_routes_test.c
> > > > > index 7db83cf5e4aa..a3b1be623861 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/tests/ni_routes_test.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/tests/ni_routes_test.c
> > > > > @@ -499,14 +499,10 @@ void test_route_register_is_valid(void)
> > > > >    	const struct ni_route_tables *T = &private.routing_tables;
> > > > >      	init_pci_fake();
> > > > > -	unittest(!route_register_is_valid(4, O(4), T),
> > > > > -		 "check for bad source 4-->4\n");
> > > > > -	unittest(!route_register_is_valid(0, O(1), T),
> > > > > -		 "find first source\n");
> > > > > -	unittest(!route_register_is_valid(4, O(6), T),
> > > > > -		 "find middle source\n");
> > > > > -	unittest(!route_register_is_valid(9, O(8), T),
> > > > > -		 "find last source");
> > > > > +	unittest(!route_register_is_valid(4, O(4), T), "check for bad source
> > > > > 4-->4\n");
> > > > > +	unittest(!route_register_is_valid(0, O(1), T), "find first source\n");
> > > > > +	unittest(!route_register_is_valid(4, O(6), T), "find middle
> > > > > source\n");
> > > > > +	unittest(!route_register_is_valid(9, O(8), T), "find last source");
> > > > >    }
> > > > >      void test_ni_check_trigger_arg(void)
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Is it worth breaking the 80-column limit for this?
> > > 
> > > Deepak,
> > > 
> > > It was much nicer before.
> > > 
> > > It can be awkward to break eg a + operation at the 80 character limit.
> > > But function argument stand by themselves.
> > > 
> > > julia
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Julia and Ian,
> > I wanted to take advantage of the relaxation of 80 column limit to 100
> > columns and hence proposed combining the lines. Are you saying this is
> > allowed only in certain cases?
> > 
> > Please confirm and I will handle it accordingly.
> 
> Hi Deepak,
> 
> 80 columns is still the preferred limit.  I think the relaxation is mostly
> to avoid the need to split sub-expressions across lines in really ugly ways
> to keep within the 80 columns at the expense of readability.
> 

Thank you Ian. That sounds good. I will just send the corrected patch 1
and will scrap patch 2.

Can I just send a standalone patch as v2 instead of a patch set of
single patch?

Deepak.

> -- 
> -=( Ian Abbott <abbotti at mev.co.uk> || MEV Ltd. is a company  )=-
> -=( registered in England & Wales.  Regd. number: 02862268.  )=-
> -=( Regd. addr.: S11 & 12 Building 67, Europa Business Park, )=-
> -=( Bird Hall Lane, STOCKPORT, SK3 0XA, UK. || www.mev.co.uk )=-