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 98771A053A; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:44:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1152956; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:44:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-oi1-f170.google.com (mail-oi1-f170.google.com [209.85.167.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A772E07 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:43:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-oi1-f170.google.com with SMTP id l136so3527866oig.1 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:43:59 -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=zzTEKv9gu4+u9sJoFXZNgDI0bkEex1k33OyVrj8i06A=; b=XJ537znsJw2OAwN/onxCS0yro6JB7D8g+YcLrrECBDt/k9YvuP8NFYQZFr+W28yqs1 IXOFopJlw2d0yWvFNrD0Fjyzh9jFQeC4zbnIj6Ss9EuBGJSQZe2meq0jWjmG+bZevhGM TKqszBFlgULZfst6YmtJBXXTJGv/Tw8jEO5Zg= 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=zzTEKv9gu4+u9sJoFXZNgDI0bkEex1k33OyVrj8i06A=; b=dJ0r6iX5YQ/sb175MDRYO7fE0ug68rG+crsmJ1BNbSFvx33SHclkXtj4usibrdPY/f yI1pVm65bh1q0aqCIRunAecfG35ZRPyE2+uZ/GQTiub3rs3VU0reEb9g8+yKOZxEsJ4V DvlWrm5yNSrx0DTMDJSH7ghTIo+qpwzoSF9RR8UjdPVOU2IaQszGOEGmm8tHFJ8EjZ0h ap+QHMyCgyCt7Rie/ofk6RHj1Aqznk/9gI5xTQ72cpAAwkSMvt4uvm0Er66UxWlA7oD8 Dr24rldpuwCksd77r/yfE3uIFjhOcdwgMatkCTLH2YYxfKe9wD7vK7UnWRGOFHtKPeHM UfwA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXHCWrPtziF3q6XKzmDvowzhs3vg1MFVHJySOK5zeko68DxQpAD 1L2xtRFPFavDNOQOljWe8hQ+O8nc1xgyeTX/i7Hh4g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwPMos2GfK4GOaKOnI7FxWuAGxqzlHoHvz7qpCR2r82UL2X6b06AEauubQf6xsz8ozbzJ6Cd9BJoI9z3Sz+dOU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:9ba:: with SMTP id e26mr11112087oig.81.1579797838319; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:43:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200123081518.4c836e60@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <20200123081518.4c836e60@hermes.lan> From: Lance Richardson Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:43:47 -0500 Message-ID: To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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" 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. Thanks, Lance