On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 06:24:34AM -0700, Matthew Giassa wrote: > * 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 > */ >
Neither, best is: /* TX Beacon Descriptor Address */ #define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B 0x0308 > Finally, would it be worth proposing the addition of this minor > exception to the style guide? Not really, it's almost too long as it is today. thanks, greg k-h
