Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 May 2017 06:24:34 -0700 | From | Matthew Giassa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] staging: rtl8723bs: checkpatch - resolve indentation and line width |
| |
* Matthew Giassa <matthew@giassa.net> [2017-05-12 05:57:44 -0700]:
>* Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> [2017-05-12 11:30:08 +0200]: > >>On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:45:24PM -0700, Matthew Giassa wrote: >>>+#define REG_INT_MIG_8723B 0x0304 /* Interrupt Migration */ >>>+#define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 /* TX Beacon Descriptor Address >>>+ */ >>>+#define REG_HQ_DESA_8723B 0x0310 /* TX High Queue Descriptor >>>+ * Address >>>+ */ >> >>Ick, that looks worse to me now, doesn't it to you? Please leave the >>original as-is.
Paring down CC list to reduce noise for off-topic question.
Quick question: in the trivial case, such as a simple block comment, the style guide (process/coding-style.rst) proposes this style:
/* * Some comments that span over several lines until column limit. * More comments that span over several lines until column limit. */
Though I see a similar variant often used, which I use by default:
/* Some comments that span over several lines until column limit. * More comments that span over several lines until column limit. */
For cases with code plus trailing (lengthy) comment, is it preferred to let it go past the 80 column limit, or to use one of the following multi-line styles? ie:
Type I: #define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 /* TX Beacon Descriptor * Address */
Type II (Ugly): #define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 /* TX Beacon Descriptor * Address */
Finally, would it be worth proposing the addition of this minor exception to the style guide?
Thank you.
--
Matthew
| |