From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQ6fb-0002Ca-Ig for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 03:46:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQ6fY-0006qs-GX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 03:46:19 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:35946 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQ6fY-0006qW-AX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 03:46:16 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5AD80125D6 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:46:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 09:46:13 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20180605094613.52bcf85d.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <52a5446f-4624-fd45-ce7d-492269aa5c3f@redhat.com> References: <20180604162140.20688-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20180604191756.1ae61871@w520.home> <52a5446f-4624-fd45-ce7d-492269aa5c3f@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] CODING_STYLE: Define our preferred form for multiline comments List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:33:22 +0200 Thomas Huth wrote: > On 05.06.2018 03:17, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:21:40 +0100 > > Peter Maydell wrote: > > > >> The codebase has a bit of a mix of > >> /* multiline comments > >> * like this > >> */ > >> and > >> /* multiline comments like this > >> in the GNU Coding Standards style */ > >> > >> State a preference for the former. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell > >> --- > >> I admit that to some extent I'm imposing my aesthetic > >> preferences here; pretty sure we have a lot more style > >> 1 comments than style 2, though. > >> --- > >> CODING_STYLE | 13 +++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/CODING_STYLE b/CODING_STYLE > >> index 12ba58ee293..fb1d1f1cd62 100644 > >> --- a/CODING_STYLE > >> +++ b/CODING_STYLE > >> @@ -124,6 +124,19 @@ We use traditional C-style /* */ comments and avoid // comments. > >> Rationale: The // form is valid in C99, so this is purely a matter of > >> consistency of style. The checkpatch script will warn you about this. > >> > >> +Multiline comments blocks should have a row of stars on the left > >> +and the terminating */ on its own line: > >> + /* like > >> + * this > >> + */ > >> +Putting the initial /* on its own line is accepted, but not required. > > > > Could we say "at maintainer discretion", or is that always implied? The > > asymmetry of the proposed standard is not my favorite and a mostly > > blank line before and after further supports standing out from > > surrounding code. > I also don't like the asymmetry. I'd prefer more dense comments, though: > > /* like > * this */ > > Anyway, could we either use that dense format or the kernel-style > multi-lines-comment format, please? Mixing it asymmetrically is just ugly. I'd vote for the kernel style, then. I'd also like the bikeshed to be painted in a grayed blue-green.