From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S642432AbdD1T1e (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:27:34 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:36256 "EHLO mail-pg0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1163941AbdD1T1Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:27:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:27:22 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Joe Perches Cc: Andy Whitcroft , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Herbert Xu , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't encourage new code to use "networking" style comments Message-ID: <20170428192721.GA72697@google.com> References: <20170428175547.61114-1-briannorris@chromium.org> <1493403858.1873.5.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1493403858.1873.5.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:24:18AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 10:55 -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > Our glorious leader has made his opinion known [1]: the "networking" > > comment style is not useful for new code. > > and yet nothing was done. > > I think _very_ few people concern themselves one way > or another. Right, so why should checkpatch complain? You're adding one more thing to my mental filter whenever I run checkpatch. > I believe the only person that actually cares about > the networking > comment style is David Miller. Which is why I've CC'd him. If even *he* doesn't care about having this warning in checkpatch, then why should anyone else? > > While the same rules as usual > > still apply -- e.g., don't unnecessarily churn existing code, and follow > > existing practice within files -- that doesn't mean that checkpatch > > should be enforcing that for entire directories. Among other reasons, > > this can cause automatic patch generators to do the exact wrong thing: > > convert perfectly good existing code into the "networking style", just > > because it's in a similar directory. > > I believe the patch generator you are referring to is > checkpatch. Actually, it was a poor reference to those (people) whose decisions flow directly from checkpatch (or other code-checking tools) to their keyboards. It's best not to encourage them, IMO. Brian