Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936444Ab3DILhH (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 07:37:07 -0400 Received: from drsnuggles.stderr.nl ([94.142.244.14]:33046 "EHLO drsnuggles.stderr.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935190Ab3DILhF (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 07:37:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:37:02 +0200 From: Matthijs Kooijman To: Joe Perches Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Paul Zimmerman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Check block comments outside of net Message-ID: <20130409113701.GI13691@login.drsnuggles.stderr.nl> Mail-Followup-To: Matthijs Kooijman , Joe Perches , Andy Whitcroft , Paul Zimmerman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20130409111958.GG13691@login.drsnuggles.stderr.nl> <1365507174.6865.31.camel@joe-AO722> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1365507174.6865.31.camel@joe-AO722> X-PGP-Fingerprint: 7F6A 9F44 2820 18E2 18DE 24AA CF49 D0E6 8A2F AFBC X-PGP-Key: http://www.stderr.nl/static/files/gpg_pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spamchecked on "mail.drsnuggles.stderr.nl" pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------- -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1203 Lines: 32 Hi Joe, On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 04:32:54AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > Note that this patch rejects /** comments, since those are not mentioned > > in Codingstyle. They are used in practice though (around 1000 occurences > > in kernel/ alone), so perhaps they should be allowed and documented? > > Those are kernel-doc comments and must be allowed. > see Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt I just realized that as well, I'll send an updated patch. > > Also, the new check only fires when the previous line is empty, just > > like the start of block comment check for net/. However, I couldn't find > > any documentation on why this restriction is needed? > > I'm not that concerned about block comment style. > Maybe others are. I'm not entirely sure if this is a answer to my question? Or are you saying you don't really care about this and thus don't know the answer? :-) > Please make it a --strict (CHK) only test for now. Ok. Gr. Matthijs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/