Re: [PATCH v5 01/17] rbtree: changes to align the coding conventions with Linux tree

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2361 bytes --]

On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 07:05 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 14.07.17 at 14:51, <kpraveen.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Agreed, I shouldn't have added.
> > rbtree.h file does include incline functions which are actually
> > commented, and in order to have complete similarity I did include
> > the
> > same here.
> > 
> > Also, rbtree.c does have comment in header note being modified, for
> > the
> > same reason.
> > 
> > Further, do you suggest to keep the old ones, but that may cause
> > porting issue and it won't be exact replica from Linux base. Please
> > suggest.
> 
> I'm fine with comment updates, _as long as you say so_ in the
> commit message. If you say "only style changes", then there
> ought to be no additions whatsoever.
> 
I fully agree with Jan.

And, as him, I also think you can update the header comments at the
beginning of both rbtree.c and rbtree.h files, as soon as you mention
that in the changelog.

*HOWEVER*, about this change, in both .c and .h:

@@ -14,7 +14,8 @@
   GNU General Public License for more details.
 
   You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
-  along with this program; If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+  along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+  Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
 
   linux/lib/rbtree.c
 */

This comes from 443701ef "Replace FSF street address with canonical
URL" (check with `git blame xen/common/rbtree.c'), and I think we
should leave this alone (i.e., keep the url, and not change back to the
physical address).

I understand it then will be a difference between our rbtree.{c,h} and
Linux's ones, but I think it's one difference it's worth living with
(and, honestly, I really don't expect this specific thing to cause much
issues in future 'backports' from Linux).

If others agree on this too, that would mean you basically would let
the header comment of rbtree.c alone, while in rbtree.h, you "just" add
the commented API usage example functions.

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel