Signed-off-by: Ncode4lala <fengziteng2@huawei.com>
Change-Id: I5269be7d8e6c8ac399d86d9b48bfbd5cfabe0d19

Signed-off-by: Ncode4lala <fengziteng2@huawei.com>

Signed-off-by: Ncode4lala <fengziteng2@huawei.com>

Signed-off-by: NHJ <huangjun42@huawei.com>

Description:openssl 1.1.1d used bu libhapverify
Team:OTHERS
Feature or Bugfix:Feature
Binary Source:Yes, it is
PrivateCode(Yes/No):No

Change-Id: I8968f9c0f146b587da17a3e603bd04fb7b4c505b
Reviewed-on: http://mgit-tm.rnd.huawei.com/7842784Tested-by: Npublic jenkins <public_jenkins@notesmail.huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Nhouyuezhou 00386575 <hou@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Nlinyibin 00246405 <linyibin@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Nweiping 00548480 <ping.wei@huawei.com>

Apart from public and internal header files, there is a third type called
local header files, which are located next to source files in the source
directory. Currently, they have different suffixes like

  '*_lcl.h', '*_local.h', or '*_int.h'

This commit changes the different suffixes to '*_local.h' uniformly.
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9681)

Names were not removed.
Some comments were updated.
Replace Andy's address with openssl.org
Reviewed-by: NAndy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NPaul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4516)

Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>

This was done by the following
        find . -name '*.[ch]' | /tmp/pl
where /tmp/pl is the following three-line script:
        print unless $. == 1 && m@/\* .*\.[ch] \*/@;
        close ARGV if eof; # Close file to reset $.

And then some hand-editing of other files.
Reviewed-by: NViktor Dukhovni <viktor@openssl.org>

Especially since after the #ifdef cleanups this is not useful.
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NTim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>

Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
PR:

1. The already released version was 0.9.1c and not 0.9.1b

2. The next release should be 0.9.2 and not 0.9.1d, because
   first the changes are already too large, second we should avoid any more
   0.9.1x confusions and third, the Apache version semantics of
   VERSION.REVISION.PATCHLEVEL for the version string is reasonable (and here
   .2 is already just a patchlevel and not major change).
tVS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------