On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 20:48 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:24 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. If it's really a generic issue, I think there are more uses of // comments in uapi files. $ git grep '//' include/uapi/ | grep -vP '(http://|https://|ftp:/)' | wc -l 101 > So, I just thought C99 was forbidden for user-space. No idea, I just believe if it's really a problem it likely would have been reported already. > If C89/C90 is already fantasy, > let's clearly say "Kernel requires C99 for user-space", > and use // everywhere for SPDX tags? OK by me. I have a checkpatch patch waiting to submit to remove the requirement to use the /* */ comment style in .h files. The docs need to be updated too. cheers, Joe
