From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BAE8C433F5 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 05:09:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232386AbiC2FK5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2022 01:10:57 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56950 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232307AbiC2FKm (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2022 01:10:42 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1FA7BC92; Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EF53B8128F; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 05:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3DC5C34116; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 05:08:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1648530531; bh=hi1FoOl5SFC8RxD/oG8PLi6b4942NDmvCh7csz/0tD0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=h1k9yPcikxXQ/62q87WBP4r1MghH9UjyPYGQSsi5uvNfHG249QkoIrK+JK9BCZA3v EkddNFmK/Dg4xkpEejG8OYa44dnmOhyVo87XUH8dE9P0h9AXWUL712QJThHkYisI83 axkuq2Z+BbCZVxlaujhJHHQPM3U3qpTq+ylikfZUGZkppRTwN/2uhuTV/eDqEWQwND 1p5M+ARswUjnu0NukCQ4bTSjz8UFFfUoMKTMkq6akvSCg15i1vUsZqnR/W1oSfa9nM 9mkhgaBaWsR0R+TCg+el+xiT+Ycg33iYjdvOtlshukK8GA8RQCkn6KJRdbswRp0zLX r7GrXQV3pf69A== From: Jakub Kicinski To: davem@davemloft.net Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch, f.fainelli@gmail.com, Jakub Kicinski Subject: [PATCH net v2 13/14] docs: netdev: broaden the new vs old code formatting guidelines Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:08:29 -0700 Message-Id: <20220329050830.2755213-14-kuba@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1 In-Reply-To: <20220329050830.2755213-1-kuba@kernel.org> References: <20220329050830.2755213-1-kuba@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Convert the "should I use new or old comment formatting" to cover all formatting. This makes the question itself shorter. Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski --- Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst index a18e4e671e85..c456b5225d66 100644 --- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst +++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst @@ -183,10 +183,10 @@ Is the comment style convention different for the networking content? * another line of text */ -I am working in existing code that has the former comment style and not the latter. Should I submit new code in the former style or the latter? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -Make it the latter style, so that eventually all code in the domain -of netdev is of this format. +I am working in existing code which uses non-standard formatting. Which formatting should I use? +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Make your code follow the most recent guidelines, so that eventually all code +in the domain of netdev is in the preferred format. I found a bug that might have possible security implications or similar. Should I mail the main netdev maintainer off-list? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 2.34.1