[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAR9iz8_wvybmrVFqDaiP3bzxjQ18EUwkvC1LMjR96WWag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 20:48:29 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: do not use C++ style comments in uapi headers
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:24 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 20:13 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > On the other hand, uapi headers are written in more strict C, where
> > the C++ comment style is forbidden.
>
> Is this a real problem for any toolchain?
I was waiting for this comment!
Which standard should UAPI headers follow?
Is it defined somewhere?
If there is no rule, is it up to subsystem maintainers?
We have a certain of unknowledge in user-space,
I do not know it it is a real problem.
Actually, this patch is related to this thread:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/22/1441
Thomas and you agreed
// should be avoided for SPDX tags in UAPI headers.
So, I just thought C99 was forbidden for user-space.
If C89/C90 is already fantasy,
let's clearly say "Kernel requires C99 for user-space",
and use // everywhere for SPDX tags?
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists