On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 05/07/2012 20:03, Blue Swirl ha scritto:
>> > > > + if (s->wwn) {
>> > > > + outbuf[buflen++] = 0x1; // Binary
>> > > > + outbuf[buflen++] = 0x3; // NAA
>> > > > + outbuf[buflen++] = 0; // reserved
>> > >
>> > > C99 comments.
>> >
>> > Just following the style of this code. Feel free to send a patch to
>> > replace with #defines.
>>
>> That's not how we should work. New code should be compliant with our
>> goals. Pushing the responsibility for fixing issues to other people
>> does not scale.
>
> I believe the coding style are attacking the wrong problem. It's
> end-of-line comments that should be avoided in favor of #defines, packed
> structs, designated initializers, etc.
This applies to C89 comments too. Perhaps HACKING file should mention this.
> But for end-of-line comments,
> C++ comments are superior to /* */ comments.
Well, submit a change to CODING_STYLE then. I think the only places
where C99 is better are lines like
//#define DEBUG_XYZ
>
> I do plan to fix the clarity issue with SCSI data structures and
> constants. But for now, the best compromise is to keep C++ comments
> IMHO. I'm not pushing the responsibility to other people in general,
> but if they think C++ comments are a major issue they can send patches.
When you add them in new code, that is a problem. New code should
comply with CODING_STYLE, code with other styles should be converted
as it is touched.
It shouldn't be much effort from your part to change the comments in
this patch to C89 style.
>
> Paolo
