On 09/08/2018 19:03, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 9 August 2018 at 17:43, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I'm still not used to the leeading-/*-on-it's-own style,
>>> so having checkpatch catch my lapses is handy...
>> ... if it's not what we are using, why enforce it?
> See the enormous long threads on the recent changes to CODING_STYLE:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-06/msg00696.html
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-06/msg02717.html
> Basically, I wanted to rule out things like
>   /* this
>      weirdness */
> and lots of other people wanted (a) to not have
>   /* this thing
>    * which I think is fine
>    */
> and (b) to consistently define only one format as OK.
> So I accepted having my personal preferred format not being
> permitted in order to get consensus on getting rid of the
> formats I think are really ugly :-)

This is one of the cases where we are decently consistent:

Lone "/*" or "/**": 9986 cases
        of which in the first column: 7617
        of which the first line in the file (license headers): 2834
        regex: ^[ \t]*/\*\*?[ \t]*$

"/*" with the first line of the comment: 11246
        of which in the first column: 4985
        of which the first line in the file: 97
        regex: ^[ \t]*/\*\*?+(?:(?!\*/).)+?$

License headers almost always have the "lone /*" format.  Apart from
license headers, 63% of the comments have the now-deprecated format.

Inside functions, 73% of the comments have the now-deprecated format.
Outside functions it's 50-50.  That's because there are 2024 doc
comments, which in turn are 50% of the comments that are 1) outside the
functions 2) using a lone "/*".

So my proposal, which is actually consistent with what QEMU is doing, is
the following:

1) the first line of a file should always be "/*", otherwise warn

2) a comment that starts with "/**" should have it on a lone line

3) every other multiline comment should start with

Yes, there is overlap between QEMU and Linux developers, but really only
in a few subsystems (s390, pSeries, networking---which uses the "other"
comment style), and I don't see why we should pretend that QEMU and
Linux use similar coding styles.  In fact they couldn't be more
different: spaces vs. tabs, indent-4 vs. indent-8, camelcase struct
names with typedefs...  Basically the only thing that is the same is
lowercase for variable names and braces on the same line as the
statement.  Linux's checkpatch was a useful base not because Linux and
QEMU are similar, but only because of the complex expression parsing
stuff that really is the same for _any_ sane coding style (even GNU ;)).


Reply via email to