> > On 13-Jan-21 6:01 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > >> On 13-Jan-21 1:01 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Instead of passing around pointers and integers, collect everything > >>>> into struct. This makes API design around these intrinsics much easier. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> > >>>> Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> Notes: > >>>> v16: > >>>> - Add error handling > >>> > >>> There are few trivial checkpatch warnings, please check > >>> > >> > >> To paraphrase Nick Fury, I recognize that checkpatch has produced > >> warnings, but given that i don't agree with what checkpatch has to say > >> in this case, I've elected to ignore it :) > >> > >> In particular, these warnings related to comments around struct members, > >> which i think i've made to look nice and also took care of correct > >> indentation in terms of code looking the same way with different tab > >> widths. So, i don't think it should be changed, unless you're suggesting > >> to re-layout comments on top of each member, rather than at the side > >> (which i think is more readable). > > > > If top is not an option, it is possible to move comment on next after > > actual field lines: > > uint32_t x; > > /**< > > * blah, blah > > * blah, blah, blah > > */ > > AFAIK that would keep checkpatch happy. > > > > It's not as much "not an option" as it would look less readable to me > than what there currently is. If we're going to keep comments not on the > side, then on the top they go. I'd prefer to keep it as is, but if you > feel strongly about it, i can change it.
I don't have any preferences about comments placement. I just thought it would be good to keep checkpatch happy. Specially if the changes in question are just cosmetic ones.
