From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752075AbcEYNmM (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 09:42:12 -0400 Received: from science.sciencehorizons.net ([71.41.210.147]:42317 "HELO ns.sciencehorizons.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751604AbcEYNmI (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 09:42:08 -0400 Date: 25 May 2016 09:42:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20160525134205.21112.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net> From: "George Spelvin" To: linux@sciencehorizons.net, phdm@macq.eu Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] m68k: Add Cc: geert@linux-m68k.org, gerg@linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <20160525132406.GA13750@frolo.macqel> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Philippe De Muyter wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:34:55AM -0400, George Spelvin wrote: >> Addition chains found by Yevgen Voronenko's Hcub algorithm at >> http://spiral.ece.cmu.edu/mcm/gen.html > Shouldn't you put that reference in the comments of your archhash.h file ? I don't really care either way, but generally comments show what the code does and commit messages talk about how it was created and by whom. That references seemed to fall into the latter category. Rationales (*why* it does what it does) can go in both places, with the commit message providing more room. I have a revised set of arch/ patches including all of the suggestions made so far, currently awaiting the requested self-test. (I found a clean way to do it using the *value* of the HAVE_FOO define to indicate whether the function is meant to be equivalent to the generic one. If it's 1, the self-test will compare the arch-specific and generic implementations.)