On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 07:50:18PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I don't get the final >> > say in whether or not this patch gets merged, but there's a decent >> > chance that I'm going to be the one who has to remove the entries again >> > once the backlight mess is fixed up. My life would be significantly >> > easier if the entries are unambiguously identified in such a way that I >> > can remove them without having to dig through git history to figure out >> > where each came from. >> >> And a *single* comment on top of this group entries achieves that just >> fine. You haven't provided a single argument as to why that wouldn't >> be the case. > > No, it demonstrably doesn't. The comments that do exist refer to only a > subset of the entries underneath them. That's not true. /* * BIOS invocation of _OSI(Linux) is almost always a BIOS bug. * Linux ignores it, except for the machines enumerated below. */ > Having a per-entry comment is significantly clearer. That is your opinion, it's not a demonstrable fact. And just to be clear, you are saying that in the following code, you have no idea which statements correspond to which sections. Am I correct? /* section 1 */ a(); b(); c(); /* section 2 */ d(); e(); /* section 3 */ f(); And once again, the problem with the **current** format of the list is orthogonal to this patch. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
