From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB9BC11F67 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 18:26:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D096141C for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 18:26:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233800AbhGAS27 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2021 14:28:59 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39532 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230014AbhGAS25 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2021 14:28:57 -0400 Received: from oasis.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6526761402; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 18:26:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 14:26:24 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Paul Burton Cc: Joel Fernandes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , stable@vger.kernel.org, Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: Simplify & fix saved_tgids logic Message-ID: <20210701142624.44bb4dde@oasis.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20210630003406.4013668-1-paulburton@google.com> <20210701140754.5847a50f@oasis.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [ Added Joe Perches ] On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 11:12:54 -0700 Paul Burton wrote: > > not to mention, we don't > > use '//' comments in the kernel, so that would have to be changed. > > D'oh! Apparently a year away from the kernel melted my internal style > checker. Interestingly though, checkpatch didn't complain about this as > I would have expected... Joe, should the above be added to checkpatch? I do understand that there are a few cases it's acceptable. Like for SPDX headers. -- Steve