Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[Ingo Molnar]

This recent checkpatch commit, added in v3.4-rc1:

  aad4f6149831 checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

made the default checkpatch run complain about the following 
perfectly fine multi-line comment block:

+               rdp->qlen_lazy = 0;
+               rdp->qlen = 0;
+
+               /*
+                * Adopt all callbacks.  The outgoing CPU was in no shape
+                * to advance them, so make them all go through a full
+                * grace period.
+                */
+               *receive_rdp->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL] = rdp->nxtlist;

With:

 CHECK: Don't begin block comments with only a /* line, use /* comment...

#80: FILE: kernel/rcutree.c:1428:
+
+		/*

Which is an obviously bogus warning: the comment is perfectly 
fine and it has the form that Documentation/CodingStyle 
specifically recommends:

|                 Chapter 8: Commenting
|
| [...]
|
| The preferred style for long (multi-line) comments is:
|
|        /*
|         * This is the preferred style for multi-line
|         * comments in the Linux kernel source code.
|         * Please use it consistently.
|         *
|         * Description:  A column of asterisks on the left side,
|         * with beginning and ending almost-blank lines.
|         */
|

Please turn this new warning off by default, or fix the check, 
or revert it. (The revert below applies cleanly on top of latest 
-git and solves the warning for me.)

Thanks,

	Ingo

This reverts commit aad4f61498314d41d047ea2161b7bd7237b72d33.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl |   40 ++++++++--------------------------------
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index de639ee..6217093 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -1864,17 +1864,6 @@ sub process {
 			}
 		}
 
-		if ($line =~ /^\+.*\*[ \t]*\)[ \t]+/) {
-			CHK("SPACING",
-			    "No space is necessary after a cast\n" . $hereprev);
-		}
-
-		if ($rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\/\*[ \t]*$/ &&
-		    $prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*$/) {
-			CHK("BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE",
-			    "Don't begin block comments with only a /* line, use /* comment...\n" . $hereprev);
-		}
-
 # check for spaces at the beginning of a line.
 # Exceptions:
 #  1) within comments
@@ -2987,8 +2976,7 @@ sub process {
 			#print "chunks<$#chunks> linenr<$linenr> endln<$endln> level<$level>\n";
 			#print "APW: <<$chunks[1][0]>><<$chunks[1][1]>>\n";
 			if ($#chunks > 0 && $level == 0) {
-				my @allowed = ();
-				my $allow = 0;
+				my $allowed = 0;
 				my $seen = 0;
 				my $herectx = $here . "\n";
 				my $ln = $linenr - 1;
@@ -2999,7 +2987,6 @@ sub process {
 					my ($whitespace) = ($cond =~ /^((?:\s*\n[+-])*\s*)/s);
 					my $offset = statement_rawlines($whitespace) - 1;
 
-					$allowed[$allow] = 0;
 					#print "COND<$cond> whitespace<$whitespace> offset<$offset>\n";
 
 					# We have looked at and allowed this specific line.
@@ -3012,34 +2999,23 @@ sub process {
 
 					$seen++ if ($block =~ /^\s*{/);
 
-					#print "cond<$cond> block<$block> allowed<$allowed[$allow]>\n";
+					#print "cond<$cond> block<$block> allowed<$allowed>\n";
 					if (statement_lines($cond) > 1) {
 						#print "APW: ALLOWED: cond<$cond>\n";
-						$allowed[$allow] = 1;
+						$allowed = 1;
 					}
 					if ($block =~/\b(?:if|for|while)\b/) {
 						#print "APW: ALLOWED: block<$block>\n";
-						$allowed[$allow] = 1;
+						$allowed = 1;
 					}
 					if (statement_block_size($block) > 1) {
 						#print "APW: ALLOWED: lines block<$block>\n";
-						$allowed[$allow] = 1;
+						$allowed = 1;
 					}
-					$allow++;
 				}
-				if ($seen) {
-					my $sum_allowed = 0;
-					foreach (@allowed) {
-						$sum_allowed += $_;
-					}
-					if ($sum_allowed == 0) {
-						WARN("BRACES",
-						     "braces {} are not necessary for any arm of this statement\n" . $herectx);
-					} elsif ($sum_allowed != $allow &&
-						 $seen != $allow) {
-						CHK("BRACES",
-						    "braces {} should be used on all arms of this statement\n" . $herectx);
-					}
+				if ($seen && !$allowed) {
+					WARN("BRACES",
+					     "braces {} are not necessary for any arm of this statement\n" . $herectx);
 				}
 			}
 		}

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[David Miller]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:17:20 +0200

> 
> This recent checkpatch commit, added in v3.4-rc1:
> 
>   aad4f6149831 checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts
> 
> made the default checkpatch run complain about the following 
> perfectly fine multi-line comment block:
> 
> +               rdp->qlen_lazy = 0;
> +               rdp->qlen = 0;
> +
> +               /*
> +                * Adopt all callbacks.  The outgoing CPU was in no shape
> +                * to advance them, so make them all go through a full
> +                * grace period.
> +                */
> +               *receive_rdp->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL] = rdp->nxtlist;
> 

I would like to formally propose that we change CodingStyle so that
our comments are of the form:

	/* XXX
	 * YYY
	 */

So that we can save one line of vertical space.

We've adopted this all across the networking, and the code looks a
lot nicer as well as allowing more actual code onto a single window
of text.

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
> I would like to formally propose that we change CodingStyle so that
> our comments are of the form:
>
>        /* XXX
>         * YYY
>         */
>
> So that we can save one line of vertical space.

Ugh, I personally hate it. No way will we make that the recommended
version, even if it might be an acceptable substitute in some
subsystems.

It looks unbalanced. If you want to save that vertical space, just use
C++ style comments instead, for chissake! Then you save *two* lines,
without the unbalanced thing, and just write it as

    // XXX
    // YYY

which is much preferred.

Your suggested format just sucks, and has the worst of all worlds.

                      Linus

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[David Miller]

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:09:12 -0700

> It looks unbalanced. If you want to save that vertical space, just use
> C++ style comments instead, for chissake! Then you save *two* lines,
> without the unbalanced thing, and just write it as
> 
>     // XXX
>     // YYY
> 
> which is much preferred.

I'm perfectly fine with this too.

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[Ingo Molnar]

* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:17:20 +0200
> 
> > 
> > This recent checkpatch commit, added in v3.4-rc1:
> > 
> >   aad4f6149831 checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts
> > 
> > made the default checkpatch run complain about the following 
> > perfectly fine multi-line comment block:
> > 
> > +               rdp->qlen_lazy = 0;
> > +               rdp->qlen = 0;
> > +
> > +               /*
> > +                * Adopt all callbacks.  The outgoing CPU was in no shape
> > +                * to advance them, so make them all go through a full
> > +                * grace period.
> > +                */
> > +               *receive_rdp->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL] = rdp->nxtlist;
> > 
> 
> I would like to formally propose that we change CodingStyle so that
> our comments are of the form:
> 
> 	/* XXX
> 	 * YYY
> 	 */
> 
> So that we can save one line of vertical space.
> 
> We've adopted this all across the networking, and the code 
> looks a lot nicer as well as allowing more actual code onto a 
> single window of text.

Sigh, this is sad for two reasons:

 1) It's butt ugly and it violates every basic principle of
    typography. Saving a line is often counter-productive, a 
    well placed whitespace (vertical or horizontal) will often 
    increase readability. Key is good balance.

    If you don't "see" it as ugly it's simply because your brain
    is not wired up to see 3D/2D geometry as a significant
    source of information. A significant portion (I'd 
    guesstimate a narrow majority) of kernel hackers *does* see
    2D/3D layout details in code and finds inconsistencies in 
    them counterproductive.

    ( It's roughly the same distinction that makes some people
      love the typographic layout of the iPhone/iPad while 
      others consider it unnecessary bling. )

 2) Even if it was proper typography (which it isnt), we have
    Documentation/CodingStyle for damn good reasons: so that
    people see a uniform style of code across the kernel. The 
    taste set out there is sometimes arbitrary in its details, 
    but one thing is certainly worse than arbitrary style rules:
    *random*, inconsistent rules, because that only adds noise.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 22:26 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>  1) It's butt ugly and it violates every basic principle of
>     typography. Saving a line is often counter-productive, a 
>     well placed whitespace (vertical or horizontal) will often 
>     increase readability. Key is good balance.

True enough.

>     If you don't "see" it as ugly it's simply because your brain
>     is not wired up to see 3D/2D geometry as a significant
>     source of information. A significant portion (I'd 
>     guesstimate a narrow majority) of kernel hackers *does* see
>     2D/3D layout details in code and finds inconsistencies in 
>     them counterproductive.

I believe there's an empty hat somewhere that must
have produced this email.

I rather doubt anyone "sees" 3d geometries out of
a coding style.  Otherwise, cite please...

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

>     If you don't "see" it as ugly it's simply because your brain
>     is not wired up to see 3D/2D geometry as a significant
>     source of information. A significant portion (I'd 
>     guesstimate a narrow majority) of kernel hackers *does* see
>     2D/3D layout details in code and finds inconsistencies in 
>     them counterproductive.
> 
>     ( It's roughly the same distinction that makes some people
>       love the typographic layout of the iPhone/iPad while 
>       others consider it unnecessary bling. )

Another example are the recent Google+ layout changes. Those who 
don't see 2D details found it an unnecessary waste of screen 
real estate.

To me and many others the new layout, while sparser, is actually 
noticeably less taxing to read, because information is 
structured in such a "geometrically obvious" way.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[David Miller]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:34:51 +0200

> 
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>>     If you don't "see" it as ugly it's simply because your brain
>>     is not wired up to see 3D/2D geometry as a significant
>>     source of information. A significant portion (I'd 
>>     guesstimate a narrow majority) of kernel hackers *does* see
>>     2D/3D layout details in code and finds inconsistencies in 
>>     them counterproductive.
>> 
>>     ( It's roughly the same distinction that makes some people
>>       love the typographic layout of the iPhone/iPad while 
>>       others consider it unnecessary bling. )
> 
> Another example are the recent Google+ layout changes. Those who 
> don't see 2D details found it an unnecessary waste of screen 
> real estate.
> 
> To me and many others the new layout, while sparser, is actually 
> noticeably less taxing to read, because information is 
> structured in such a "geometrically obvious" way.

I guess us visual retards will have to find a new web site to
use then, thanks for the lesson Ingo.

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 05:00:04PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> 
> I guess us visual retards will have to find a new web site to
> use then, thanks for the lesson Ingo.

Facebook would love to welcome you back :-)

I must be retarded, as I still find facebook better than G+.

-- Steve

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[Ingo Molnar]

* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:34:51 +0200
> 
> > 
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> >>     If you don't "see" it as ugly it's simply because your brain
> >>     is not wired up to see 3D/2D geometry as a significant
> >>     source of information. A significant portion (I'd 
> >>     guesstimate a narrow majority) of kernel hackers *does* see
> >>     2D/3D layout details in code and finds inconsistencies in 
> >>     them counterproductive.
> >> 
> >>     ( It's roughly the same distinction that makes some people
> >>       love the typographic layout of the iPhone/iPad while 
> >>       others consider it unnecessary bling. )
> > 
> > Another example are the recent Google+ layout changes. Those who 
> > don't see 2D details found it an unnecessary waste of screen 
> > real estate.
> > 
> > To me and many others the new layout, while sparser, is actually 
> > noticeably less taxing to read, because information is 
> > structured in such a "geometrically obvious" way.
> 
> I guess us visual retards will have to find a new web site to 
> use then, thanks for the lesson Ingo.

All I'm trying to point out is that it's a visual conflict that 
exists which probably has genetic origins.

For you it's too much whitespace, for me (and apparently Linus) 
the lack of it results in harder to read patterns of code due to 
missing geometric symmetry clues.

Since I don't have your brain and your eyes I cannot know 
exactly how bad the extra whitespaces are for you - and you 
probably don't know how bad the lack of symmetry is for me and 
others.

So I did not intend to make any judgement about it one way or 
another, but I guessed that a bit more vertical size is probably 
less taxing than less structure - but I'm obviously biased. If 
it's really bad for you we can still reconsider.

( I suspect it would be pretty hard but not impossible to
  construct an objective readability test to settle similar 
  issues scientifically and create an 'ideal' coding style based 
  on objective rules alone, eliminating subjective 'taste'. )

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[David Miller]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:26:54 +0200

>     If you don't "see" it as ugly it's simply because your brain
>     is not wired up to see 3D/2D geometry as a significant
>     source of information.

I'm sorry that I'm so handicapped that I cannot match your
visual capabilitites.

I hope you have a nice day too Ingo.

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[Ingo Molnar]

(Sorry about the late reply, was busy with other things.)

* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:26:54 +0200
> 
> >     If you don't "see" it as ugly it's simply because your brain
> >     is not wired up to see 3D/2D geometry as a significant
> >     source of information.
> 
> I'm sorry that I'm so handicapped that I cannot match your
> visual capabilitites.

I genuinely think that it's the other way around: if what I say 
above is true then *you* have the superior vision for coding.

Geometric properties of code are a distraction really, they 
don't matter to the end result.

So in reality keeping comments balanced helps *my* disability: 
my inability to ignore functionally irrelevant patterns of 
characters...

So I am asking *you* to do me a favor: please understand my 
perspective and insert a bit more whitespace to keep code 
readable for people like me.

( The wider question is, what is the contribution weighted 
  proportion of the two groups of kernel developers and what is 
  the disutility and utility of the two variants. It's a 
  difficult balancing task and there's no perfect solution. )

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: Please fix or revert: [PATCH] checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts

[Randy Dunlap]

On 04/16/2012 02:17 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> This recent checkpatch commit, added in v3.4-rc1:
> 
>   aad4f6149831 checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts
> 
> made the default checkpatch run complain about the following 
> perfectly fine multi-line comment block:
> 
> +               rdp->qlen_lazy = 0;
> +               rdp->qlen = 0;
> +
> +               /*
> +                * Adopt all callbacks.  The outgoing CPU was in no shape
> +                * to advance them, so make them all go through a full
> +                * grace period.
> +                */
> +               *receive_rdp->nxttail[RCU_NEXT_TAIL] = rdp->nxtlist;
> 
> With:
> 
>  CHECK: Don't begin block comments with only a /* line, use /* comment...
> 
> #80: FILE: kernel/rcutree.c:1428:
> +
> +		/*
> 
> Which is an obviously bogus warning: the comment is perfectly 
> fine and it has the form that Documentation/CodingStyle 
> specifically recommends:
> 
> |                 Chapter 8: Commenting
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | The preferred style for long (multi-line) comments is:
> |
> |        /*
> |         * This is the preferred style for multi-line
> |         * comments in the Linux kernel source code.
> |         * Please use it consistently.
> |         *
> |         * Description:  A column of asterisks on the left side,
> |         * with beginning and ending almost-blank lines.
> |         */
> |
> 
> Please turn this new warning off by default, or fix the check, 
> or revert it. (The revert below applies cleanly on top of latest 
> -git and solves the warning for me.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
> 
> This reverts commit aad4f61498314d41d047ea2161b7bd7237b72d33.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>


Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>

Thanks.

> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl |   40 ++++++++--------------------------------
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index de639ee..6217093 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -1864,17 +1864,6 @@ sub process {
>  			}
>  		}
>  
> -		if ($line =~ /^\+.*\*[ \t]*\)[ \t]+/) {
> -			CHK("SPACING",
> -			    "No space is necessary after a cast\n" . $hereprev);
> -		}
> -
> -		if ($rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\/\*[ \t]*$/ &&
> -		    $prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*$/) {
> -			CHK("BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE",
> -			    "Don't begin block comments with only a /* line, use /* comment...\n" . $hereprev);
> -		}
> -
>  # check for spaces at the beginning of a line.
>  # Exceptions:
>  #  1) within comments
> @@ -2987,8 +2976,7 @@ sub process {
>  			#print "chunks<$#chunks> linenr<$linenr> endln<$endln> level<$level>\n";
>  			#print "APW: <<$chunks[1][0]>><<$chunks[1][1]>>\n";
>  			if ($#chunks > 0 && $level == 0) {
> -				my @allowed = ();
> -				my $allow = 0;
> +				my $allowed = 0;
>  				my $seen = 0;
>  				my $herectx = $here . "\n";
>  				my $ln = $linenr - 1;
> @@ -2999,7 +2987,6 @@ sub process {
>  					my ($whitespace) = ($cond =~ /^((?:\s*\n[+-])*\s*)/s);
>  					my $offset = statement_rawlines($whitespace) - 1;
>  
> -					$allowed[$allow] = 0;
>  					#print "COND<$cond> whitespace<$whitespace> offset<$offset>\n";
>  
>  					# We have looked at and allowed this specific line.
> @@ -3012,34 +2999,23 @@ sub process {
>  
>  					$seen++ if ($block =~ /^\s*{/);
>  
> -					#print "cond<$cond> block<$block> allowed<$allowed[$allow]>\n";
> +					#print "cond<$cond> block<$block> allowed<$allowed>\n";
>  					if (statement_lines($cond) > 1) {
>  						#print "APW: ALLOWED: cond<$cond>\n";
> -						$allowed[$allow] = 1;
> +						$allowed = 1;
>  					}
>  					if ($block =~/\b(?:if|for|while)\b/) {
>  						#print "APW: ALLOWED: block<$block>\n";
> -						$allowed[$allow] = 1;
> +						$allowed = 1;
>  					}
>  					if (statement_block_size($block) > 1) {
>  						#print "APW: ALLOWED: lines block<$block>\n";
> -						$allowed[$allow] = 1;
> +						$allowed = 1;
>  					}
> -					$allow++;
>  				}
> -				if ($seen) {
> -					my $sum_allowed = 0;
> -					foreach (@allowed) {
> -						$sum_allowed += $_;
> -					}
> -					if ($sum_allowed == 0) {
> -						WARN("BRACES",
> -						     "braces {} are not necessary for any arm of this statement\n" . $herectx);
> -					} elsif ($sum_allowed != $allow &&
> -						 $seen != $allow) {
> -						CHK("BRACES",
> -						    "braces {} should be used on all arms of this statement\n" . $herectx);
> -					}
> +				if ($seen && !$allowed) {
> +					WARN("BRACES",
> +					     "braces {} are not necessary for any arm of this statement\n" . $herectx);
>  				}
>  			}
>  		}
> --


-- 
~Randy

[PATCH] checkpatch: revert --strict test for net/ and drivers/net block comment style

[Joe Perches]

---
On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 12:44 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 02:17 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >   aad4f6149831 checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts
> > made the default checkpatch run complain about the following 
> > perfectly fine multi-line comment block:

No, it didn't.

It only made checkpatch complain if --strict was
added to the command line arguments.

I don't care about the comment style, it is/was
David Miller's preferred style for drivers/net and
net/

I think a straight revert isn't appropriate.

Here's one that just removes the comment check.

[PATCH] checkpatch: revert --strict test for net/ and drivers/net block comment style

[Joe Perches]

Revert the --strict test for the old preferred block
comment style in drivers/net and net/

Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>

---

grumble.  Don't reply to email from internet cafes.

On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 12:44 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 02:17 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >   aad4f6149831 checkpatch: add --strict tests for braces, comments and casts
> > made the default checkpatch run complain about the following 
> > perfectly fine multi-line comment block:

No, it didn't.

It only made checkpatch complain if --strict was
added to the command line arguments.

I don't care about the comment style, it is/was
David Miller's preferred style for drivers/net and
net/

I think a straight revert isn't appropriate.

Here's one that just removes the comment check.

 scripts/checkpatch.pl |    6 ------
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index de639ee..faea0ec 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -1869,12 +1869,6 @@ sub process {
 			    "No space is necessary after a cast\n" . $hereprev);
 		}
 
-		if ($rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\/\*[ \t]*$/ &&
-		    $prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*$/) {
-			CHK("BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE",
-			    "Don't begin block comments with only a /* line, use /* comment...\n" . $hereprev);
-		}
-
 # check for spaces at the beginning of a line.
 # Exceptions:
 #  1) within comments

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: revert --strict test for net/ and drivers/net block comment style

[Ingo Molnar]

* Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:

> Revert the --strict test for the old preferred block
> comment style in drivers/net and net/

Emphatic NAK.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: revert --strict test for net/ and drivers/net block comment style

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
>> Revert the --strict test for the old preferred block
>> comment style in drivers/net and net/
>
> Emphatic NAK.

Ingo, I don't think you understood. That test reverts the thing you
wanted reverted wrt the block comments.

It does not revert the *other* things in that patch (testing for empty
braces etc).

So Joe's patch seems to be exactly what you asked for,

                      Linus

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: revert --strict test for net/ and drivers/net block comment style

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Revert the --strict test for the old preferred block
> >> comment style in drivers/net and net/
> >
> > Emphatic NAK.
> 
> Ingo, I don't think you understood. That test reverts the thing you
> wanted reverted wrt the block comments.

Yeah, I was confused: I judged it by the title and description 
and assumed it was only doing it for drivers/net/ and net/.

But in reality it just does a wholesale revert of this check 
with no net/ and drivers/net/ specificity to it, so it's 
perfectly fine to me:

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: revert --strict test for net/ and drivers/net block comment style

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 12:07 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Yeah, I was confused: I judged it by the title and description 
> and assumed it was only doing it for drivers/net/ and net/.

If you don't read the text, no amount of
geometric layout symmetry will clarify it.