Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming

[Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:31:39AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
> stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:29:54 -0600
> > Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "C comments" includes //, right? It's been part of the C standard for a
> > long time now...
> >
> > Yes but.
> > I like to use checkpatch and checkpatch enforces kernel style which does
> > not allow // for
> > comments.
> >
> 
> Fork checkpatch and disable that bit? DPDK isn't the kernel, so no
> requirement to follow all of its rules
> 

Doesn't that beg the question, why?  I understand the DPDK isn't the kernel, but
we're not talking about clarity of code, not anything functional to that code.
It seems we would be better served by just taking something that works here
rather than re-inventing the wheel and digging into the minuate of what type of
comments should be allowed (unless there is a compelling reason to change it
that supercedes the avilable tools).  If not checkpath, then some other tool,
but It seems to me that coding style is one of those things where we can bend to
the tool rather than taking the time to make the tool do exactly whats desired,
at least until someone gets the time to modify it.

Neil