> On Jul 27, 2005, at 13:08, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 25, 2005, at 16:06, Francois Romieu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> +int mdiobus_register(struct mii_bus *bus)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int i;
> >>>> + int err = 0;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + spin_lock_init(&bus->mdio_lock);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (NULL == bus || NULL == bus->name ||
> >>>> + NULL == bus->read ||
> >>>> + NULL == bus->write)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Be spartan:
> >>> if (!bus || !bus->name || !bus->read || !bus->write)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think we have to agree to disagree here. I could be convinced, but
> >> I'm partial to using NULL explicitly.
> >>
> >
> > But there are 2 issues here (at least). One is to use NULL or
> > not. The other is using (constant == var) or (var == constant).
> >
> > It's not described in CodingStlye afaik, but most recent email
> > on the subject strongly prefers (var == constant) [in my
> > unscientific survey -- of bits in my head].
> >
> > So using the suggested style will fix both of these. :)
>
>
> Ok, here I won't agree to disagree with you. !foo as a check for
> NULL is a reasonable idea, but not my style. If that's the preferred
> style for the kernel, I will do that.
>
> But (var == constant) is a style that asks for errors. By putting
> the constant first in these checks, you never run the risk of leaving
> a bug like this:
>
> if (dev = NULL)
> ...
>
> This kind of error is quite frustrating to detect, and the eye will
> often miss it when scanning for errors. If you follow constant ==
> var, though, then the bug looks like this:
>
> if (NULL = dev)
>
> which is instantly caught by the compiler.
>
> Just my 32 cents
Yes, we know about that argument. :)
> >>>> + /* Otherwise, we allocate the device, and initialize the
> >>>> + * default values */
> >>>> + dev = kmalloc(sizeof(*dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (NULL == dev) {
> >>>> + errno = -ENOMEM;
> >>>> + return NULL;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + memset(dev, 0, sizeof(*dev));
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The kernel provides kcalloc.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I went looking for it, and found it in fs/cifs/misc.c. I'm hesitant
> >> to link to a function defined in the filesystem code just to save 1
> >> line of code
> >>
> >
> > It's more global than that.
>
>
> Should we move the function, then, to include/linux/slab.h? Or
> somewhere else?
It's there, like Francois said. Get use a current tree.
---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
