lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/13] uapi: General notification ring definitions [ver #4]
From
Date
On 6/13/19 6:34 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>> What is the problem with inline functions in UAPI headers?
>
> It makes compiler problems more likely; it increases the potential for name
> collisions with userspace; it makes for more potential problems if the headers
> are imported into some other language; and it's not easy to fix a bug in one
> if userspace uses it, just in case fixing the bug breaks userspace.
>
> Further, in this case, the first of Darrick's functions (calculating the
> length) is probably reasonable, but the second is not. It should crank the
> tail pointer and then use that, but that requires
>
>>>> Also, weird multiline comment style.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>
>> Yes really.
>
> No. It's not weird. If anything, the default style is less good for several
> reasons. I'm going to deal with this separately as I need to generate some
> stats first.
>
> David
>

OK, maybe you are objecting to the word "weird." So the multi-line comment style
that you used is not the preferred Linux kernel multi-line comment style
(except in networking code) [Documentation/process/coding-style.rst] that has been
in effect for 20+ years AFAIK.


--
~Randy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-13 17:01    [W:0.086 / U:26.904 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site