Re: comments style: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/9] printk-rb: add a new printk ringbuffer implementation

[Andrea Parri]

> I am not suggesting to remove all comments. Some human readable
> explanation is important as long as the code is developed by humans.
> 
> I think that I'll have to accept also the extra comments if you are
> really going to use them to check the consistency by a tool. Or
> if they are really used for review by some people.

Glad to hear this.  Thank you, Petr.


> Do all this manuals, tools, people use any common syntax, please?
> Would it be usable in our case as well?
> 
> I would like to avoid reinventing the wheel. Also I do not want
> to create a dialect for few people that other potentially interested
> parties will not understand.

Right; I think that terms such as "(barrier) matching", "reads-from"
and "overwrites" are commonly used to refer to litmus tests.  (The
various primitives/instructions are of course specific to the given
context: the language, the memory model, etc. )

IOW, I'd say that that wheel _and a common denominator here can be
represented by the notion of "litmus test".  I'm not suggesting to
reinvent this wheel of course; my point was more along the lines of
"let's use the wheel, it'll be helpful..."  ;-)

  Andrea