Re: [PATCH 03/24] rcu/tree: Use consistent style for comments

Paul E. McKenney
2020-05-04T00:23:12Z

On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 07:44:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 01:52:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 12:05 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:58:42PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > > Simple clean up of comments in kfree_rcu() code to keep it consistent
> > > > with majority of commenting styles.
> > []
> > > on /* */ style?
> > >
> > > I am (slowly) moving RCU to "//" for those reasons. ;-)
> >
> > I hope c99 comment styles are more commonly used soon too.
> > checkpatch doesn't care.
> >
> > Perhaps a change to coding-style.rst
> > ---
> > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > index acb2f1b..fee647 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > @@ -565,6 +565,11 @@ comments is a little different.
> > * but there is no initial almost-blank line.
> > */
> >
> > +.. code-block:: c
> > +
> > + // Single line and inline comments may also use the c99 // style
> > + // Block comments as well
> > +
> > It's also important to comment data, whether they are basic types or derived
> > types. To this end, use just one data declaration per line (no commas for
> > multiple data declarations). This leaves you room for a small comment on each
>
> Yeah that's fine with me. This patch just tries to keep it consistent. I am
> Ok with either style.

My approach has been gradual change. Big-bang changes of this sort
cause quite a bit of trouble. So I use "//" in new code and (sometimes)
convert nearby ones when making a change.

Thanx, Paul