Re: [PATCH 02/13] uapi: General notification ring definitions [ver #4]

[Randy Dunlap]

On 6/13/19 6:34 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> What is the problem with inline functions in UAPI headers?
> 
> It makes compiler problems more likely; it increases the potential for name
> collisions with userspace; it makes for more potential problems if the headers
> are imported into some other language; and it's not easy to fix a bug in one
> if userspace uses it, just in case fixing the bug breaks userspace.
> 
> Further, in this case, the first of Darrick's functions (calculating the
> length) is probably reasonable, but the second is not.  It should crank the
> tail pointer and then use that, but that requires 
> 
>>>> Also, weird multiline comment style.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>
>> Yes really.
> 
> No.  It's not weird.  If anything, the default style is less good for several
> reasons.  I'm going to deal with this separately as I need to generate some
> stats first.
> 
> David
> 

OK, maybe you are objecting to the word "weird."  So the multi-line comment style
that you used is not the preferred Linux kernel multi-line comment style
(except in networking code) [Documentation/process/coding-style.rst] that has been
in effect for 20+ years AFAIK.


-- 
~Randy