Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:47:57 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
        dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        oleg@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/14] rcu/nocb: Add bypass callback
 queueing
Message-ID: <20190807034757.GA28441@linux.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20190802151435.GA1081@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190802151501.13069-2-paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190807000313.GA161170@google.com>
 <20190807003501.GX28441@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190806204055.088ba246@gandalf.local.home>
 <20190807011707.GZ28441@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190806212415.012a105d@oasis.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190806212415.012a105d@oasis.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:24:15PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 18:17:07 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 08:40:55PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:35:01 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > > > +	// Don't use ->nocb_bypass during early boot.    
> > > > > 
> > > > > Very minor nit: comment style should be /* */    
> > > > 
> > > > I thought that Linus said that "//" was now OK.  Am I confused?  
> > > 
> > > Have a link?  
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/8/625
> 
>   The (c) form is particularly good for things like enum or structure
>   member comments at the end of code, where you might want to align
>   things up, but the ending comment marker ends up being visually pretty
>   distracting (and lining _that_ up is too much make-believe work).
> 
> I think it's still for special occasions, and the above example doesn't
> look like one of them ;-)

It does say "particularly good for", not "only good for.  ;-)

> I basically avoid the '//' comment, as it just adds inconstancy.

It saves me two whacks on the shift key and three whacks on other
keys.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul