On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 05:23:09PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 07:44:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 01:52:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 12:05 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:58:42PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote: > > > > > Simple clean up of comments in kfree_rcu() code to keep it consistent > > > > > with majority of commenting styles. > > > [] > > > > on /* */ style? > > > > > > > > I am (slowly) moving RCU to "//" for those reasons. ;-) > > > > > > I hope c99 comment styles are more commonly used soon too. > > > checkpatch doesn't care. > > > > > > Perhaps a change to coding-style.rst > > > --- > > > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 5 +++++ > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > > > index acb2f1b..fee647 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > > > @@ -565,6 +565,11 @@ comments is a little different. > > > * but there is no initial almost-blank line. > > > */ > > > > > > +.. code-block:: c > > > + > > > + // Single line and inline comments may also use the c99 // style > > > + // Block comments as well > > > + > > > It's also important to comment data, whether they are basic types or derived > > > types. To this end, use just one data declaration per line (no commas for > > > multiple data declarations). This leaves you room for a small comment on each > > > > Yeah that's fine with me. This patch just tries to keep it consistent. I am > > Ok with either style. > > My approach has been gradual change. Big-bang changes of this sort > cause quite a bit of trouble. So I use "//" in new code and (sometimes) > convert nearby ones when making a change. Ok thanks for the guidance on that, will follow similar conversion strategy as well. thanks, - Joel
