From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38271) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQ8gV-0002IS-Ls for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 05:55:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQ8gR-0005ZX-MH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 05:55:23 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:33112 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQ8gR-0005Wn-FM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 05:55:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:55:14 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20180605115514.65af4c41.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20180604162140.20688-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20180604191756.1ae61871@w520.home> <52a5446f-4624-fd45-ce7d-492269aa5c3f@redhat.com> <20180605094613.52bcf85d.cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] CODING_STYLE: Define our preferred form for multiline comments List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Thomas Huth , QEMU Developers On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:19:15 +0100 Peter Maydell wrote: > On 5 June 2018 at 08:46, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:33:22 +0200 > > Thomas Huth wrote: > >> Anyway, could we either use that dense format or the kernel-style > >> multi-lines-comment format, please? Mixing it asymmetrically is just ugly. > > > > I'd vote for the kernel style, then. > > I don't particularly object to the kernel style (though it's not > how I personally default to writing comments). I just didn't want > to rule a huge chunk of our existing comments as out-of-standard > for what I see as a relatively minor divergence in form -- > we do have a lot of no-leading-separate-/* comments. I can live > with mandating kernel-style if it means we can rule out GNU-form > and other weirdnesses though :-) Yes, we should be flexible... as long as it isn't GNU :) Whatever we end up with, we should take care that we don't get zillions of "cleanup" patches that don't add value... something like "no need to change preexisting comments, unless you're touching the code anyway".