[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170512132434.hyqrvayg66zpzrhe@darkstar>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 06:24:34 -0700
From: Matthew Giassa <matthew@...ssa.net>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] staging: rtl8723bs: checkpatch - resolve indentation
and line width
* Matthew Giassa <matthew@...ssa.net> [2017-05-12 05:57:44 -0700]:
>* Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> [2017-05-12 11:30:08 +0200]:
>
>>On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:45:24PM -0700, Matthew Giassa wrote:
>>>+#define REG_INT_MIG_8723B 0x0304 /* Interrupt Migration */
>>>+#define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 /* TX Beacon Descriptor Address
>>>+ */
>>>+#define REG_HQ_DESA_8723B 0x0310 /* TX High Queue Descriptor
>>>+ * Address
>>>+ */
>>
>>Ick, that looks worse to me now, doesn't it to you? Please leave the
>>original as-is.
Paring down CC list to reduce noise for off-topic question.
Quick question: in the trivial case, such as a simple block comment, the
style guide (process/coding-style.rst) proposes this style:
/*
* Some comments that span over several lines until column limit.
* More comments that span over several lines until column limit.
*/
Though I see a similar variant often used, which I use by default:
/* Some comments that span over several lines until column limit.
* More comments that span over several lines until column limit.
*/
For cases with code plus trailing (lengthy) comment, is it preferred to
let it go past the 80 column limit, or to use one of the following
multi-line styles? ie:
Type I:
#define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 /* TX Beacon Descriptor
* Address */
Type II (Ugly):
#define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 /* TX Beacon Descriptor
* Address
*/
Finally, would it be worth proposing the addition of this minor
exception to the style guide?
Thank you.
--
Matthew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists