On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote:Please don't take patches like this. If it's janitor work, the end result should be better. But it's not. This patch is full of stuff like - for(addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000); addr += 16) { + for (addr = (u8 *) __va(0xf0000); addr < (u8 *) __va(0x100000); + addr += 16) { rt = pirq_check_routing_table(addr); Which just brings negative value. The code is _harder_ to look at, not easier. The 80-character limit is less important than making code look obvious and indentation being readable. Splitting the for(;;) loop just made the indentation look like total crap. I'm fixing it up (since it also caused trivial conflicts), but I'd ask people to just ignore that sh*t-for-brains that is the long-line warning when trying to fix it may silence a warning, but results in worse code! Linus --
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Amit K. Arora | [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Chuck Ebbert | Why do so many machines need "noapic"? |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
