Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:27:21 -0400 | From | Chris Metcalf <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |