Re: CodingStyle vs checkpatch for block comments

[Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>]

On 4/3/2012 2:16 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:08 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> On 4/3/2012 1:41 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 13:25 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>>> The relevant code in checkpatch.pl is:
>>>>
>>>>                 if ($rawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*\/\*[ \t]*$/ &&
>>>>                     $prevrawline =~ /^\+[ \t]*$/) {
>>>>                         CHK("BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE",
>>>>                             "Don't begin block comments with only a /*
>>>> line, use /* comment...\n" . $hereprev);
>>>>                 }
>>>>
>>>> So, my questions -
>>>>
>>>> 1. I'm not sure what the regexps are really trying to avoid.  Presumably a
>>>> blank line followed by a block comment is OK?  Certainly the kernel sources
>>>> are full of this construct.
>>> It emits a check message on
>>> <blank line>
>>> 	/*
>>>
>>> but not
>>> <blank line>
>>> 	/* some actual comment
>> Right, I understand what the regexps do, I'm just not clear on what the
>> rationale is.
> Fewer vertical lines for block comments.
>
> This block comment uses a lot of lines:
>
> 		some_code();
> 	}
>
> 	/*
> 	 * Some multiline
> 	 * block comment
> 	 */
>
> 	some_more_code();
>
> This is 1 fewer line
>
> 		some_code();
> 	}
>
> 	/* Some multline
> 	 * block comment
> 	 */
>
> 	some_more_code();
>
> [....]
> It's suggesting that a multi line comment block
> starting with only a /* wastes space on vertically
> challenged terminals.

So I suggest we drop the check from checkpatch, then, since it appears to
conflict with Documentation/CodingStyle.
-- 
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com