lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CodingStyle vs checkpatch for block comments


On 4/3/2012 2:16 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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();
>
> [....]
> It's suggesting that a multi line comment block
> starting with only a /* wastes space on vertically
> challenged terminals.

So I suggest we drop the check from checkpatch, then, since it appears to
conflict with Documentation/CodingStyle.
--
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-03 20:29    [W:0.029 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site