From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Joseph, Anoob" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/33] common/cpt: add common code for init routine Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:59:15 +0530 Message-ID: <0d24273a-de9d-e9fa-9b99-5dcba3ebfea8@caviumnetworks.com> References: <1528476325-15585-1-git-send-email-anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> <1536033560-21541-6-git-send-email-ajoseph@caviumnetworks.com> <1686325.VlSG2WtMdx@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Akhil Goyal , Pablo de Lara , Jerin Jacob , Narayana Prasad , dev@dpdk.org, Ankur Dwivedi , Murthy NSSR , Nithin Dabilpuram , Ragothaman Jayaraman , Srisivasubramanian S , Tejasree Kondoj , ferruh.yigit@intel.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com To: Thomas Monjalon , Anoob Joseph Return-path: Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0054.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1A7683E for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 14:28:28 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <1686325.VlSG2WtMdx@xps> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Thomas, On 17-09-2018 17:16, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > External Email > > 17/09/2018 12:45, Akhil Goyal: >> On 9/4/2018 9:28 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: >>> +struct pending_queue { >>> + uint16_t enq_tail; >>> + uint16_t deq_head; >>> + uint16_t soft_qlen; >>> + /**< Software expected queue length */ >>> + uint16_t p_doorbell; >>> + struct rid *rid_queue; >>> + /**< Array of pending requests */ >>> + uint64_t pending_count; >>> + /**< Pending requests count */ >>> +}; >> better to add comment for each element of structure. >> Also remove extra tab for comments(here and any other place if any.) > I don't understand this trend in the community about doing comments > _after_ the item _and_ not on the same line. > The default style should be commenting _before_. > And if you feel it is better to have the comment on the same line, > then you can comment _after_, but on the same line. Will fix it. Saw comments after the item being used frequently and thought that was the convention. Thanks Anoob