* Matthew Giassa <matt...@giassa.net> [2017-05-12 05:57:44 -0700]:
* Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> [2017-05-12 11:30:08 +0200]:
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:45:24PM -0700, Matthew Giassa wrote:
+#define REG_INT_MIG_8723B 0x0304 /* Interrupt Migration
*/
+#define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 /* TX Beacon Descriptor
Address
+ */
+#define REG_HQ_DESA_8723B 0x0310 /* TX High Queue
Descriptor
+ * Address
+ */
Ick, that looks worse to me now, doesn't it to you? Please leave the
original as-is.
Paring down CC list to reduce noise for off-topic question.
Quick question: in the trivial case, such as a simple block comment, the
style guide (process/coding-style.rst) proposes this style:
/*
* Some comments that span over several lines until column limit.
* More comments that span over several lines until column limit.
*/
Though I see a similar variant often used, which I use by default:
/* Some comments that span over several lines until column limit.
* More comments that span over several lines until column limit.
*/
For cases with code plus trailing (lengthy) comment, is it preferred to
let it go past the 80 column limit, or to use one of the following
multi-line styles? ie:
Type I:
#define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 /* TX Beacon Descriptor
* Address */
Type II (Ugly):
#define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 /* TX Beacon Descriptor
* Address
*/
Finally, would it be worth proposing the addition of this minor
exception to the style guide?
Thank you.
--
Matthew
