From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75B3A0536; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 22:38:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8DD93576; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 22:38:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ot1-f45.google.com (mail-ot1-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D45D2A6C for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 22:38:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ot1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 77so3050097oty.6 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:38:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TgYVe2Rb01+iLSrTK19H65ziwBEB0INGDSNbdUYuIk8=; b=URdWyDP3YWjwYRnNoXnl0Bl7iQ3pP3IdRaSBKCqWRF3mzvxxKh83SdzIn9J1AVGfNq pFl41Zrn5j5hHzkXTHcQkSoWEXvaNQ2NKTLO4GqBxvqOUtg6w7qZiTWj43rZ/aU3cj01 hZ5P7VtvhPMHhmKatnQX6J+DKYkL7ik2iZjXo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TgYVe2Rb01+iLSrTK19H65ziwBEB0INGDSNbdUYuIk8=; b=rDH9NdeMlorP6vXx+PCu1hGHuprRyxKBf4fXfksdvd1uRJBeunWsZSNGAF4VFzdrYG kLatlYK74swGIIiA3Z6U/xgWClrYRrZKT0hGT/9MIoeI0+/KiA2ZW9b8jUi5jFHjOEC/ 4SZHduouJTCB91br5/ZGg6MxRxZsh8Av+/M+OZvdvBm0tnCRUcUfszC8Qt20TFSzcGwP ehZbq1pYbJG3+mdA7XddupMnSS9eRmnX5xPXYA99IsSjdJHQ2013/MmeRGqO7RrYwmsY IJ+MFNny5lTAoJqV9IwMQsTl53dAX46AkAFQsILYWg/4pqWHwI87ufIAD2LEkdXmJx6m ieUg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWE7qlNboaKfr0fMi9tJveSeZHoIcq17nW923Dc88zpY9LTm2bx +X11kpSBCrCw6TIiKV0+BGgTVaqZqPd2oqVkfKGdRA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz/g4N85V4L4pHm/yOxWiZFfSCp+4iPLBaisARAjm9EQQhyqnpL/Ov8Of56Iuv0isCLVjDrkrZVBxpAX3kf7kM= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7487:: with SMTP id t7mr2103657otk.267.1579901883503; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:38:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200123081518.4c836e60@hermes.lan> <71ad489e-8030-fb06-b405-f29f6c3bc8ea@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <71ad489e-8030-fb06-b405-f29f6c3bc8ea@intel.com> From: Lance Richardson Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:37:52 -0500 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] coding style question - c99 comments X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Thanks, a patch adding C99_COMMENT_TOLERANCE has been posted. Lance On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 1/23/2020 4:43 PM, Lance Richardson wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:15 AM Stephen Hemminger > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:05:58 -0500 > >> Lance Richardson wrote: > >> > >>> The DPDK Coding Style document doesn't mention the use of c99 comments > >>> using '//' as a comment delimiter, but it does say that traditional > >>> '/* */' comment > >>> delimiters should be used and therefore seems to imply that c99-style > comments > >>> are not allowed. > >>> > >>> Is this correct? > >>> > >>> Lance > >> > >> Don't use c99 comments. > >> These will get flagged by checkpatch > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > Actually, the reason I was asking was they aren't being flagged by > checkpatch. > > > > It seems checkpatch.pl now has this: > > my $allow_c99_comments = 1; # Can be overridden by --ignore > > C99_COMMENT_TOLERANCE > > > > If c99 comments are should not be allowed, it looks like > > C99_COMMENT_TOLERANCE should > > be added to the list of checkers to ignore in checkpatches.sh. I was > > thinking of rolling a patch, > > but wanted to first confirm that they are actually not allowed. > > > > Hi Lance, > > That is what I understand from coding style document that c99 comments are > not > allowed and agree to not use them. > > +1 to add C99_COMMENT_TOLERANCE > >