On Mar 12 2007 13:37, Cong WANG wrote:
>
> The following code is picked from drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c:
>
> static struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu_load(struct kvm *kvm, int vcpu_slot)
> {
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = &kvm->vcpus[vcpu_slot];
>
> mutex_lock(&vcpu->mutex);
> if (unlikely(!vcpu->vmcs)) {
> mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex);
> return 0;
> }
> return kvm_arch_ops->vcpu_load(vcpu);
> }
>
> Obviously, it used 0 rather than NULL when returning a pointer to
> indicate an error. Should we fix such issue?Indeed. If it was for me, something like that should throw a compile error. >>[...] > I think it's more clear to indicate we are using a pointer rather than > an integer when we use NULL in kernel. But in userspace, using NULL is > for portbility of the program, although most (*just* most, NOT all) of > NULL's defination is ((void*)0). ;-) NULL has the same bit pattern as the number zero. (I'm not saying the bit pattern is all zeroes. And I am not even sure if NULL ought to have the same pattern as zero.) So C++ could use (void *)0, if it would let itself :p > > Jan -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
