From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41951 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5hdW-0007SR-HA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:55:53 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>) id 1Q5hdQ-0008Vo-Cs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:55:45 -0400
Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:37177)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>) id 1Q5hdQ-0008VC-7N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:55:44 -0400
Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com
	[9.17.195.107])
	by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p31Gipm8001676
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:44:51 -0600
Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245])
	by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
	p31Gtg5f089796
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:55:42 -0600
Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP
	id p31H0Y4f023827
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 11:00:35 -0600
Message-ID: <4D96038B.3020703@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:55:39 -0500
From: Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] checkpatch.pl: warn on C99 comments, but don't fail
References: <1301671255-27717-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<AANLkTi=+XcYfjGdvh_VxEomJMX3zSoYUZx9-wPtpVE0c@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik2sBYGEVv6N4ZeATFK8qNZjAOXeBJVQaoya6ZX@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=_MKeak8yy+GFLjdLd4mV9vbkDKQ2BEA-GEBr1@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=_MKeak8yy+GFLjdLd4mV9vbkDKQ2BEA-GEBr1@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com

On 04/01/2011 11:16 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 1 April 2011 16:59, Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Peter Maydell<peter.maydell@linaro.org>  wrote:
>>> On 1 April 2011 16:20, Michael Roth<mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>  wrote:
>>>> We also make C99 //comments a warning instead of an error, since they
>>>> don't actually violate QEMU's coding guidelines.
>>>
>>> We should either update the guidelines or fix the script...
>>
>> There are a whole bunch of // in the codebase.  I prefer /* */ but as
>> it stands I think // should not even raise a warning.
>
> I don't care much either, really. I just don't think we should be
> introducing random coding standards rules by the back door because
> checkpatch happens to complain about them.

Whether or not // comments should also be a warning...I'm not sure. It 
seems like a reasonable "suggestion" to make though, since mixed comment 
styles makes code look nastier. I could also go either way though...

But there *are* some warnings that make sense to complain about without 
saying "you can't do this", like extern's in .c files: some cases are 
exceptional.

I'd prefer to only document "strict" guidelines, and treat checkpatch.pl 
warnings ("suggestions") as an extra "reward" you get for taking the 
time to run it.

>
> -- PMM