From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262382AbVBLCEp (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:04:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262245AbVBLCEo (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:04:44 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:31936 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262381AbVBLCDS (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:03:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:03:02 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> cc: Andrew Morton , Manfred Spraul , linux-kernel , Richard Henderson , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: out-of-line x86 "put_user()" implementation In-Reply-To: <200502112058_MC3-1-95CC-5FF1@compuserve.com> Message-ID: References: <200502112058_MC3-1-95CC-5FF1@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > And in any case is it too much to ask for an 80-column limit? ;) Yes. Dammit, especially for something like this, the long-line version is just _so_ much more readable. Compare my and your version wrt being able to tell what the differences between the four different cases are. In the single-long-line version, the differences are trivially visible. In the "prettified" version (aka "I'm still living in the 60's, and proud of it" version), it's impossible to pick out the differences. If you don't like long lines, use a helper #define for the common part or something. Linus