linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] drivers/staging/rtl8192u: Reformat comments

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: <20190603130437.GA30732@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jun 2019 15:04:37 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Christian Müller <muellerch-privat@....de>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, felix.trommer@...mail.de,
        linux-kernel@...cs.fau.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        johnfwhitmore@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drivers/staging/rtl8192u: Reformat comments

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 02:21:02PM +0200, Christian Müller wrote:
> From: Felix Trommer <felix.trommer@...mail.de>
> 
> Replace C99-Style comments with C89-Style comments.

What does that mean?

>  		if (MaxChnlNum >= pTriple->first_channel) {
> -			/* It is not in a monotonically increasing order, so
> +			/*
> +			 * It is not in a monotonically increasing order, so
>  			 * stop processing.
>  			 */

Those are both /* */ style comments.  Where in the C99 or C89 spec does
it say anything about this type of change?

Are you sure you are not getting confused about // for a comment marker
in C99 which is not in C89?

thanks,

greg k-h