Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: CodingStyle vs checkpatch for block comments | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:16:50 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:08 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 4/3/2012 1:41 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 13:25 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > >> The relevant code in checkpatch.pl is: > >> > >> if ($rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\/\*[ \t]*$/ && > >> $prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*$/) { > >> CHK("BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE", > >> "Don't begin block comments with only a /* > >> line, use /* comment...\n" . $hereprev); > >> } > >> > >> So, my questions - > >> > >> 1. I'm not sure what the regexps are really trying to avoid. Presumably a > >> blank line followed by a block comment is OK? Certainly the kernel sources > >> are full of this construct. > > It emits a check message on > > <blank line> > > /* > > > > but not > > <blank line> > > /* some actual comment > > Right, I understand what the regexps do, I'm just not clear on what the > rationale is.
Fewer vertical lines for block comments.
This block comment uses a lot of lines:
some_code(); }
/* * Some multiline * block comment */
some_more_code();
This is 1 fewer line
some_code(); }
/* Some multline * block comment */
some_more_code();
> Is it trying to ensure that multi-line block comments are > never preceded by a blank line?
No.
> Is it trying to change the format of block > comments such that they either are preceded by a blank line, or a > standalone "/*", but not both? Confusing.
It's suggesting that a multi line comment block starting with only a /* wastes space on vertically challenged terminals.
Some of my friends are also vertically challenged, so I understand the desire to be efficient.
> Obviously removing it would be an easy fix. :-) I don't know if it makes > sense to advocate for different kernel comment styles in different subtrees.
<shrug> I don't care much either way.
The content of the comment is more important.
| |