On Fri, 27 Sep 2024, Luke Jones wrote: > On Fri, 27 Sep 2024, at 7:24 PM, Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> How much would you like to care for standard compliance concerns > >>> together with your software developments? > >> > >> I only ask about because it seems to deviate from everything else I've viewed. For example the older `asus-wmi.h` has: > >> > >> #ifndef _ASUS_WMI_H_ > >> #define _ASUS_WMI_H_ > > > > Such a naming approach is “popular”, isn't it? > > > > > >> and every other header in the drivers/platform/x86 dir is similar. If what I'm supposed to is omit the leading `_` then sure I'll do it, it's not of any consequence to me. > > > > I dare to propose possibilities to take safer identifier selections > > better into account. > > I hope that we can benefit more from corresponding collateral evolution. > > My sincerest apologies if I missed something in my tone when trying to convey might thoughts - for some things I am still learning in regards to C (I am mostly rust) and the difference was a curious thing to me. > > The code is now updated to match your suggestion. Markus is not an authority on Linux kernel codeing style, rather a collector of random suggestions about C code that he would like to impose on the Linux kernel. So if you consider that his suggestion is not appropriate in a Linux kernel context, please disregard it. julia > > > Regards, > > Markus > >
