Re: [PATCH 4/4] staging: rtl8723bs: checkpatch - resolve indentation and line width

[Matthew Giassa]

* Matthew Giassa <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx> [2017-05-12 05:57:44 -0700]:

> * Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2017-05-12 11:30:08 +0200]:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:45:24PM -0700, Matthew Giassa wrote:
> > > +#define	REG_INT_MIG_8723B		0x0304	/* Interrupt Migration */
> > > +#define	REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B		0x0308	/* TX Beacon Descriptor Address
> > > +						 */
> > > +#define	REG_HQ_DESA_8723B		0x0310	/* TX High Queue Descriptor
> > > +						 * Address
> > > +						 */
> >
> > Ick, that looks worse to me now, doesn't it to you?  Please leave the
> > original as-is.

Paring down CC list to reduce noise for off-topic question.

Quick question: in the trivial case, such as a simple block comment, the
style guide (process/coding-style.rst) proposes this style:

/*
* Some comments that span over several lines until column        limit.
* More comments that span over several lines until column        limit.
*/

Though I see a similar variant often used, which I use by default:

/* Some comments that span over several lines until column        limit.
* More comments that span over several lines until column        limit.
*/

For cases with code plus trailing (lengthy) comment, is it preferred to
let it go past the 80 column limit, or to use one of the following
multi-line styles? ie:

Type I:
#define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B                     0x0308   /* TX Beacon Descriptor
                                                         * Address */

Type II (Ugly):
#define REG_BCNQ_DESA_8723B                     0x0308   /* TX Beacon Descriptor
                                                         * Address
                                                         */

Finally, would it be worth proposing the addition of this minor
exception to the style guide?

Thank you.

--

Matthew