From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/33] common/cpt: add common code for
	init routine
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 14:51:09 +0200
Message-ID: <7843615.4ScgYAuD0v@xps>
References: <1528476325-15585-1-git-send-email-anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
 <1686325.VlSG2WtMdx@xps> <7325a516-0f5b-1993-efd9-1a203346b137@nxp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
 Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Ankur Dwivedi <ankur.dwivedi@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Murthy NSSR <nidadavolu.murthy@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Nithin Dabilpuram <nithin.dabilpuram@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Ragothaman Jayaraman <rjayaraman@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Srisivasubramanian S <ssrinivasan@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Tejasree Kondoj <kondoj.tejasree@caviumnetworks.com>, ferruh.yigit@intel.com,
 john.mcnamara@intel.com
To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
 Anoob Joseph <ajoseph@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEA37EE3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 17 Sep 2018 14:51:13 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <7325a516-0f5b-1993-efd9-1a203346b137@nxp.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

17/09/2018 14:32, Akhil Goyal:
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On 9/17/2018 5:16 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 
> > 17/09/2018 12:45, Akhil Goyal:
> >> On 9/4/2018 9:28 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
> >>> +struct pending_queue {
> >>> +	uint16_t enq_tail;
> >>> +	uint16_t deq_head;
> >>> +	uint16_t soft_qlen;
> >>> +		/**< Software expected queue length */
> >>> +	uint16_t p_doorbell;
> >>> +	struct rid *rid_queue;
> >>> +		/**< Array of pending requests */
> >>> +	uint64_t pending_count;
> >>> +		/**< Pending requests count */
> >>> +};
> >> better to add comment for each element of structure.
> >> Also remove extra tab for comments(here and any other place if any.)
> > I don't understand this trend in the community about doing comments
> > _after_ the item _and_ not on the same line.
> > The default style should be commenting _before_.
> > And if you feel it is better to have the comment on the same line,
> > then you can comment _after_, but on the same line.
> >
> I think this should not matter, whether the comment should be before or after,
> 
> it should be consistent across the code. I can see that both are being used equally.
> 
> Shall we change the complete code beyond this driver as well?
> 
> I think whatever we choose, it should be atleast consistent within the file.

Let me rephrase.

There are 3 styles:
	1/ comment on the previous line (before the item)
	2/ comment on the same line (just after the item)
	3/ comment on the next line (after the item)

I am fine with #1 and #2 but I really don't see the benefit of #3.