On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 09:37:09AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:15 PM Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 03:49:42PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > > /**< is for post annotations.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 839b20be0e9b ("ethdev: support metadata as flow rule criteria")
> > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > index c692c33ec4..2030b3bef9 100644
> > > --- a/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > +++ b/lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf_core.h
> > > @@ -584,8 +584,8 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > > * @see rte_event_eth_tx_adapter_txq_set()
> > > */
> > > } txadapter; /**< Eventdev ethdev Tx adapter */
> > > - /**< User defined tags. See
> > > rte_distributor_process() */
> > > uint32_t usr;
> > > + /**< User defined tags. See
> > > rte_distributor_process() */
> >
> > Yes, this fixes the issue, but...
> > I dislike having the comment on the line under the item in question. I
> > think the post-annotation comments should only be used for comments on the
> > same line. If the comment is to be on a different line, I think it should
> > go on the previous line to the item. I also think this tends to be the
> > style used throughout DPDK generally.
>
> I dislike post annotations (regardless of being on the same line or
> not) as it is easy to mix the description of fields in a structure.
> But this file has many other usages of this form and, in doubt, I
> aligned to them.
>
> I can send a followup cleanup if you want, is that ok for you?
>
If this is consistent with what is already done in the file, then I'm ok
with it as a fix. Follow-up cleanup is obviously welcome, but doesn't have
to be you doing it.
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
