From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754283AbZELNgf (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 09:36:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752536AbZELNg0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 09:36:26 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:56803 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752206AbZELNgZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2009 09:36:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:35:50 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Oberparleiter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Huang Ying , Li Wei , Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] gcov: add gcov profiling infrastructure Message-ID: <20090512133550.GA11746@elte.hu> References: <20090507124556.041286732@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090507124558.618214093@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090507134610.GN28398@elte.hu> <4A04133B.8080501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090511131708.GB32693@elte.hu> <4A0974FA.9090501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0974FA.9090501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Oberparleiter wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Peter Oberparleiter wrote: >> >>>>> +/* __gcov_init is called by gcc-generated constructor code for each object >>>>> + * file compiled with -fprofile-arcs. */ > [...] >> It isnt about the amount of comments, it is about the plain (and >> simple to rectify) fact that the above two-lines comment is >> inconsistent with other kernel code. > > Ok, I misunderstood when I replied. The updated patch set should contain > the correct changes though. > >>>>> $(asflags-y) $(AFLAGS_$(basetarget).o) >>>>> _cpp_flags = $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(cppflags-y) $(CPPFLAGS_$(@F)) >>>>> +# Enable gcov profiling flags for a file, directory or for all >>>>> files depending >>>>> +# on variables GCOV_PROFILE_obj.o, GCOV_PROFILE and CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL >>>>> +# (in this order) >>>>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL),y) >>>> Please try to use winged comments in makefiles too. >>> What do you mean by winged comments? >> >> This: >> >> /* >> * Comment ..... >> * ...... goes here: >> */ >> >> Is called a winged comment. Its makefile equivalent is: > > Ok. Though google disagrees on that definition (see > http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/W/winged-comments.html). yeah, i guess you are right, the correct term would be something like 'multi-line winged comments'. Ingo