On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 08:01:34PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > */ You appear to have missed the continuation of that comment directly underneath which lists a subset of the devices covered by the quirks. > > Having a per-entry comment is significantly clearer. > > That is your opinion, it's not a demonstrable fact. Say one of the machines turns out to need the quirk for two different reasons. How do we document that? Look, how about you add the comments and I'll do a patch that adds documentation to the existing entries? I'm not asking you to make up for other people's past mistakes, I'm asking you not to perpetuate them. > 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? No, that's not what I'm saying. But I'm now going to a bar and drink instead of having to justify why *clearly documenting this code* is a worthwhile thing to do. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
