On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 08:29:06PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 30/06/2017 18:46, Jan Blunck:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > wrote:
> > > 29/06/2017 20:21, Jan Blunck:
> > >> +static int
> > >> +bus_find_device(const struct rte_bus *bus, const void *_dev)
> > >> +{
> > >> + struct rte_device *dev;
> > >> +
> > >> + dev = bus->find_device(NULL, cmp_rte_device, _dev);
> > >> + return !dev;
> > >> +}
> > >
> > > The preferred code style is to make explicit the NULL comparisons:
> > > return dev == NULL;
> >
> > Oh, interesting ... not a lot of C++ programmers around here I guess.
> >
> > Does this mean you also want me to make integer tests explicit again 0?
>
> Good question, I don't know.
> I know only this part of the coding rules:
> http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#null-pointers
>
Yes, I noticed that gap the other day. IMHO for consistency the integers
should similarly be compared to 0/non-zero explicitly rather than using
"!" operator. The exception I would allow is where a function is named
in such a way that is clearly returns a boolean value as int e.g. a
function "int is_computer_on()".
/Bruce
