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

Ian Abbott abbotti at mev.co.uk
Mon Oct 19 12:46:13 UTC 2020


On 19/10/2020 12:49, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> 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?

That should be fine, but in the notes for "v2" after  the "---" line for 
the now standalone patch, you could mention that patch 2/2 of the series 
has been dropped.

-- 
-=( 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 )=-


More information about the devel mailing list