On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:38:39PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >On 7/31/07, Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > >>>On 7/27/07, Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>If there is a definite style or semantic preference that everyone > >>>>should live > >>>>with - does it make sense to put checks in checkpatch.pl to enforce it? > >>>> > >>>checkpatch.pl does not have enough semantic knowledge to know if the > >>>thing being tested is a pointer ... dont know if the sparse utility > >>>would be able to pick it out as i'm not familiar with what level that > >>>thing runs at > >>> > >>Didn't he mean "x == NULL" > "!x"? > >> > > > >i'm sure i understand your meaning of ">" ... are you saying that "x > >== NULL" is greater (preferred) to "!x" or are you saying that "x == > >NULL" should be changed to "!x" ? > > > If I understood Robin correctly, he suggested that checkpatch.pl would > tell to convert "x == NULL" to "!x", if that would be the preferred way. > >i dont think the former case can be checked by checkpatch.pl, but the > >latter certainly can ... but i'd be very skeptical you could get the > >wider LKML audience to sign off one way or the other wrt to "x == > >NULL" vs "!x". you can certainly get people to sign off on "x == 0" > >being wrong when x is a pointer. > > > I agree! > BTW, too bad checkpatch.pl does not know the types, since it otherwise > could check for the "x [=!]= 0"-thing.
About the only place that if (x != 0) is preferred to if (x) is cases where the 0 value doesn't semantically correspond to false/off/disabled. And that's basically thing that return 0 for success and negative errors. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
