From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7A3C433E0 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E53560230 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:00:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7E53560230 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cn.fujitsu.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D9ED16B0006; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 04:00:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D4ED56B006E; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 04:00:07 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C648A6B0070; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 04:00:07 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0048.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23A36B0006 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 04:00:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749B2181AEF30 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:00:07 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77830791654.24.yard91_29101f327653 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FFE1A4A0 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:00:07 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: yard91_29101f327653 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3020 Received: from heian.cn.fujitsu.com (mail.cn.fujitsu.com [183.91.158.132]) by imf45.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:00:05 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,186,1610380800"; d="scan'208";a="104601999" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 18 Feb 2021 17:00:03 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.204]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5E34CE72E3; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:59:58 +0800 (CST) Received: from irides.mr (10.167.225.141) by G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:59:57 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/11] mm, fsdax: Refactor memory-failure handler for dax mapping To: Christoph Hellwig CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20210208105530.3072869-1-ruansy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20210208105530.3072869-6-ruansy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20210210133347.GD30109@lst.de> <45a20d88-63ee-d678-ad86-6ccd8cdf7453@cn.fujitsu.com> <20210218083230.GA17913@lst.de> From: Ruan Shiyang Message-ID: <9edffa8e-faf8-3d29-6ec0-69ad512e7bb7@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:59:56 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210218083230.GA17913@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.167.225.141] X-ClientProxiedBy: G08CNEXCHPEKD04.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.200) To G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.204) X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 2F5E34CE72E3.AE2D0 X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: ruansy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2021/2/18 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=884:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:56:11AM +0800, Ruan Shiyang wrote: >> I'd like to confirm one thing... I have checked all of this patchset = by >> checkpatch.pl and it did not report the overly long line warning. So,= I >> should still obey the rule of 80 chars one line? >=20 > checkpatch.pl is completely broken, I would not rely on it. >=20 > Here is the quote from the coding style document: >=20 > "The preferred limit on the length of a single line is 80 columns. >=20 > Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks= , > unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and doe= s > not hide information." >=20 OK. Got it. Thank you. -- Ruan Shiyang. >=20