| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:47:43 -0600 From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca> To: Cong WANG <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Style Question Cong WANG wrote: > Hi, list! > > I have a question about coding style in linux kernel. In > Documention/CodingStyle, it is said that "Linux style for comments is > the C89 "/* ... */" style. Don't use C99-style "// ..." comments." > _But_ I see a lot of '//' style comments in current kernel code. > > Which is wrong? The documentions or the code, or neither? And why? The code.. As with a lot of coding style issues, it's likely just that nobody saw it and bothered to complain when it went in. > Another question is about NULL. AFAIK, in user space, using NULL is > better than directly using 0 in C. In kernel, I know it used its own > NULL, which may be defined as ((void*)0), but it's _still_ different > from raw zero. So can I say using NULL is better than 0 in kernel? It's the preferred style, Sparse will complain about using 0 for a null pointer for example.. -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@...pamshaw.ca Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists