So it looks like we're pretty much all in agreement with 1-line and >=3 line comments. My only real concern is if "--ignore BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE" in the patch removes the check for the long comments, though I confess to being ignorant of how checkpatch works.
To chip in my own $0.02 on the 2-line comment discussion: IMO they should use the same form as 1-line comments so that we have exactly one form for short comments one form for long comments. On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Nico Huber <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26.08.2016 17:56, Vadim Bendebury wrote: > > I actually tend to agree with Julius that it does not make sense to > waste 4 > > lines for a two line comment. So, ideally the tool should be enforcing > the > > verbose style for comments longer than say 2 lines. > > Well, I too prefer the concise style for shorter comments. But I > wouldn't enforce a number of lines. Maybe just say it's allowed for > single-paragraph comments? > > And thanks, Julius, for bringing up the readability. This is what we > should focus on. Actually I think a verbose-style comment shouldn't be > allowed between code lines. That's something for longer explanations > like a function description. > > But I'm really with Linus when it comes to the leading, single asterisk. > It looks totally weird, IMHO > > /* A small, concise comment > that doesn't fit a single line */ > > is easier for the eye than > > /* A small, concise comment > * that doesn't fit a single line */ > > where your eyes somehow stick on the asterisk first and then have to > search for the real start of the line. > > I wouldn't go as far as changing current code, but enforcing a style > (we can agree on) for new code might prevent future discussions. > > Nico > > -- > coreboot mailing list: [email protected] > https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot > -- David Hendricks (dhendrix) Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
