Re: [PATCH 03/24] rcu/tree: Use consistent style for comments

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 07:44:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 01:52:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 12:05 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:58:42PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > > Simple clean up of comments in kfree_rcu() code to keep it consistent
> > > > with majority of commenting styles.
> > []
> > > on /* */ style?
> > > 
> > > I am (slowly) moving RCU to "//" for those reasons.  ;-)
> > 
> > I hope c99 comment styles are more commonly used soon too.
> > checkpatch doesn't care.
> > 
> > Perhaps a change to coding-style.rst
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > index acb2f1b..fee647 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > @@ -565,6 +565,11 @@ comments is a little different.
> >  	 * but there is no initial almost-blank line.
> >  	 */
> >  
> > +.. code-block:: c
> > +
> > +	// Single line and inline comments may also use the c99 // style
> > +	// Block comments as well
> > +
> >  It's also important to comment data, whether they are basic types or derived
> >  types.  To this end, use just one data declaration per line (no commas for
> >  multiple data declarations).  This leaves you room for a small comment on each
> 
> Yeah that's fine with me. This patch just tries to keep it consistent. I am
> Ok with either style.

My approach has been gradual change.  Big-bang changes of this sort
cause quite a bit of trouble.  So I use "//" in new code and (sometimes)
convert nearby ones when making a change.

							Thanx, Paul