[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1493403858.1873.5.camel@perches.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't encourage new code to use
"networking" style comments
On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 10:55 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> Our glorious leader has made his opinion known [1]: the "networking"
> comment style is not useful for new code.
<shrug> and yet nothing was done.
I think _very_ few people concern themselves one way
or another.
I believe the only person that actually cares about
the networking
comment style is David Miller.
> While the same rules as usual
> still apply -- e.g., don't unnecessarily churn existing code, and follow
> existing practice within files -- that doesn't mean that checkpatch
> should be enforcing that for entire directories. Among other reasons,
> this can cause automatic patch generators to do the exact wrong thing:
> convert perfectly good existing code into the "networking style", just
> because it's in a similar directory.
I believe the patch generator you are referring to is
checkpatch.
And checkpatch doesn't actually offer to "--fix" any
comment style. It just bleats a message.
I don't know of another tool that proposes patches
that vary comment styles based on directory.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists