linux-kernel - Re: Style Question

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0703112134180.16857@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:35:50 +0100 (MET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Cong WANG <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Style Question


On Mar 11 2007 22:15, Cong WANG wrote:
>
> 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. And because it's not always reviewed but silently pushed.

> 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.

In what way?

>So can I say using NULL is better than 0 in kernel?

On what basis? Do you even know what NULL is defined as in
(C, not C++) userspace? Think about it.


Jan
-- 
-
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/