From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753249AbYACOir (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:38:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751144AbYACOik (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:38:40 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:45596 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751005AbYACOij (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:38:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [x86] kernel/audit.c cleanup according to checkpatch.pl From: David Woodhouse To: Ingo Molnar Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel , Cyrill Gorcunov , LKML In-Reply-To: <20080103143711.GA29606@elte.hu> References: <20080103111925.GC8046@cvg> <20080103112957.GA14693@lazybastard.org> <20080103140549.GA19363@elte.hu> <1199370550.3697.79.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20080103143711.GA29606@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:37:24 +0000 Message-Id: <1199371044.3697.80.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.2 (2.12.2-3.fc8.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 15:37 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 15:05 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > not to make a big issue out of this, but when was the last time you > > > tried to grep this way: > > > > > > grep -E "audit_rate_limit=[0-9]+ audit_backlog" */*.c > > > > Not precisely that, but I've certainly had greps fail because people > > have split up strings to meet the stupid 80-character "limit". > > yes - but if you read my whole reply you'll see that i qualified it: > > >> That's pretty much the only grep pattern that would break. People > >> usually grep on the constant portion of the string, so breaking up a > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> line along a variable boundary is perfectly okay. Yes, you did. But you failed to provide any good reason for actually changing it, either. Leave it as it was. -- dwmw2