Re: + add-pselect-ppoll-system-call-implementation-tidy.patch added to -mm tree

Re: + add-pselect-ppoll-system-call-implementation-tidy.patch added to -mm tree

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 17:05 -0800, akpm@osdl.org wrote:
> -                       memcpy(&current->saved_sigmask, &sigsaved, sizeof(sigsaved));
> +                       memcpy(&current->saved_sigmask, &sigsaved,
> +                                       sizeof(sigsaved));


I often use an editor in an 80x25 terminal to edit code, and I object to
this kind of patch because it make the code _harder_ to read on such a
terminal.

In 99.9% of cases, you don't _care_ about double-checking precisely what
the third argument to that memcpy is. You glance at the line of code and
it's obvious what's happening. It's _better_ if it's off the right-hand
side of the screen rather than being moved down to take up a line all of
its own. You just wasted one more of my precious 25 lines.

The same goes for printks, where I've seen people actually break up
strings and move them onto multiple lines. In the common case, we just
don't _care_ -- what fits onto the first 80 columns is _enough_.

Please don't make this kind of change.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: + add-pselect-ppoll-system-call-implementation-tidy.patch added to -mm tree

[Andrew Morton]

David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> It's _better_ if it's off the right-hand
>  side of the screen

umm, not all editors do that.  Some wrap the text, and it looks like crap.

Re: + add-pselect-ppoll-system-call-implementation-tidy.patch added to -mm tree

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 17:21 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> umm, not all editors do that.  Some wrap the text, and it looks like
> crap.

So we go for equal opportunities by making it look like crap for
everyone?

-- 
dwmw2