Re: [PATCH x86/mm] x86-64, NUMA: Fix distance table handling

[Tejun Heo]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:07:27AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > +	size_t size = numa_distance_cnt * numa_distance_cnt *
> > +		      sizeof(numa_distance[0]);
> 
> > +		memblock_x86_reserve_range(phys, phys + phys_size,
> > +					   "TMP NUMA DIST");
> 
> > +		memblock_x86_free_range(__pa(phys_dist),
> > +					__pa(phys_dist) + phys_size);
> 
> These silly linebreaks are really annoying. Please ignore checkpatch when the 
> solution makes the result so much uglier. Having line width up to 90-95 is still 
> fine.

I'm letting all the printks format strings go over the limit (whatever
that may be) but all these files already mostly conform to 80-column
limit so I'm a bit hesitant to break it for codes.  Hey, but it's
ultimately your call.

FWIW, I'm not really decided about 80 vs. whatever column issue.
Having a common limit definitely helps a lot but it seems almost
impossible to agree on one - is it 90, 95, 100 or 120?  Given that, it
almost seems just sticking to 80 might be the only doable solution.

Thanks.

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