On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 1:45 PM Aditya Srivastava <yashsri421@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 20/3/21 12:23 pm, Aditya wrote: > > On 18/3/21 11:48 pm, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > >> Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> Yeah, and as this line-counting is really just a poor man's > >>> heuristics, we might just be better to really turn this heuristics > >>> into a dedicated cleanup warning script, then we can check for more > >>> indicators, such as "does it contain the word Copyright" somewhere in > >>> the kernel-doc comment, which tells us even more that this is not a > >>> kernel-doc as we would expect it. > >> > >> I really don't think we need that kind of heuristic. The format of > >> kerneldoc comments is fairly rigid; it shouldn't be too hard to pick out > >> the /** comments that don't fit that format, right? Am I missing > >> something there? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> jon > >> > > Hi Lukas and Jon! > I have a question, should I clean up the files with '/**' like > comments in only header lines? Or as we are planning for making it > generic, for other lines as well? > Aditya, of course, if you can detect and come across some unintended '/**' comments in some files, clean them in the same go (as you did with ecryptfs). I am just worried that if you extend it to the fully generic case, that the list of cases simply explodes: showing many 1,000 cases across various 1,000 files that need to be cleaned up, and such clean-up work is just too much to get done by yourself. The current list limited to comments in header lines seems to be a set of patches that you can probably get done. Lukas
