Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 1/3] lib/string_helpers: Consolidate yesno() implementation

From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: "Emma Anholt" <emma@anholt.net>,
	"David Airlie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
	nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rasmus Villemoes" <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Chris Wilson" <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	"Vishal Kulkarni" <vishal@chelsio.com>,
	"Francis Laniel" <laniel_francis@privacyrequired.com>,
	"Kentaro Takeda" <takedakn@nttdata.co.jp>,
	amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, "Ben Skeggs" <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"Harry Wentland" <harry.wentland@amd.com>,
	"Petr Mladek" <pmladek@suse.com>,
	"Sakari Ailus" <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
	"Leo Li" <sunpeng.li@amd.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Raju Rangoju" <rajur@chelsio.com>,
	"Lucas De Marchi" <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
	"Jani Nikula" <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	"Julia Lawall" <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	"Rahul Lakkireddy" <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>,
	"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	"Mikita Lipski" <mikita.lipski@amd.com>,
	"Eryk Brol" <eryk.brol@amd.com>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"Sergey Senozhatsky" <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	"Alex Deucher" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 1/3] lib/string_helpers: Consolidate yesno() implementation
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 21:25:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YehllDq7wC3M2PQZ@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220119100635.6c45372b@gandalf.local.home>

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:06:35AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:18:59 +0200
> Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:24:48PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > @@ -1354,8 +1345,7 @@ static bool tomoyo_print_condition(struct tomoyo_io_buffer *head,
> > >  	case 3:
> > >  		if (cond->grant_log != TOMOYO_GRANTLOG_AUTO)
> > >  			tomoyo_io_printf(head, " grant_log=%s",
> > > -					 tomoyo_yesno(cond->grant_log ==
> > > -						      TOMOYO_GRANTLOG_YES));
> > > +					 yesno(cond->grant_log == TOMOYO_GRANTLOG_YES));  
> > 
> > This would be better split on two lines.
> 
> Really? Yuck!
> 
> I thought the "max line size" guideline was going to grow to a 100, but I
> still see it as 80. But anyway...
> 
> 	cond->grant_log ==
> 	TOMOYO_GRANTLOG_YES
> 
> is not readable at all. Not compared to
> 
> 	cond->grant_log == TOMOYO_GRANTLOG_YES
> 
> I say keep it one line!
> 
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

I believe Sakari strongly follows the 80 rule, which means...

> > Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>

...chose either of these tags and be happy with :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko