Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc/mm: Fix memory_block_size_bytes() for non-pseries

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:23:33 +0200

* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 14:15 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > +/* WARNING: This is going to override the generic definition whenever
> > > + * pseries is built-in regardless of what platform is active at boot
> > > + * time. This is fine for now as this is the only "option" and it
> > > + * should work everywhere. If not, we'll have to turn this into a
> > > + * ppc_md. callback
> > > + */
> > 
> > Just a small nit, please use the customary (multi-line) comment 
> > style:
> > 
> >   /*
> >    * Comment .....
> >    * ...... goes here.
> >    */
> > 
> > specified in Documentation/CodingStyle.
> 
> Ah ! Here goes my sneak attempts at violating coding style while 
> nobody notices :-)
> 
> No seriously, that sort of stuff shouldn't be such a hard rule... 
> In some cases the "official" way looks nicer, on some cases it's 
> just a waste of space, and I've grown to prefer my slightly more 
> compact form, at least depending on how the surrounding code looks 
> like.
>
> Since that's all powerpc arch code, I believe I'm entitled to that 
> little bit of flexibility in how the code looks like :-) It's not 
> like I'm GoingToPlayWithCaps() or switching to 3-char tabs :-)

It's certainly not a hard rule - but note that the file in question 
(arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-memory.c) has a rather 
inconsistent comment style, sometimes even within the same function:

        /*
         * Remove htab bolted mappings for this section of memory
         */
...

        /* Ensure all vmalloc mappings are flushed in case they also
         * hit that section of memory
         */

That kind of inconsistency within the same .c file and within the 
same function is not defensible with a "style is a matter of taste" 
argument.

As i said, it's just a small nit.

Thanks,

	Ingo