On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:18:47PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Wednesday 2008-04-09 15:14, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 10:46:06AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> > Oh, and if people felt that the concensus was for something to be
> >> > implemented and that you are waiting for me to implement the change in
> >> > checkpatch; please say so.
> >> 
> >> Well at least I think the printk change is a good one to implement and there 
> >> wasn't much protest to it at least.
> >
> >Ok.  will put this on my todo list.
> 
> Instead of
> 
> 	if (foo) {
> 		if (baz) {
> 			++x;
> printk("Oh so long line makes my coding style go wary... nonsensical sentence\n");
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> I'd keep the indent and allow elongated lines:
> 
> 	if (foo) {
> 		if (baz) {
> 			++x;
> 			printk("Oh so long line makes my coding style go wary... nonsensical sentence\n");
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> Or perhaps you just pointed out we need a smarter grep program! :)


My preference would be for the latter.  Keep the line indent consistent
and allow the line to overspill.  But that would depend on the concensus
obviously.  The originally suggested layout was:

			printk(
"Oh ....",
				a, b);

-apw
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/