[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080627115727.149dcb2e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:57:27 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Takashi Sato" <t-sato@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, mtk.manpages@...glemail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:33:58 +0900
"Takashi Sato" <t-sato@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
> >> case XFS_FSOP_GOING_FLAGS_DEFAULT: {
> >> - struct super_block *sb = freeze_bdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev);
> >> + struct super_block *sb = freeze_bdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev, 0);
> >
> > Using NULL here is clearer and will, I expect, avoid a sparse warning.
>
> I checked it but I couldn't find a sparse warning in xfs_fsops.c.
> Can you tell me how to use NULL?
struct super_block *sb = freeze_bdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev, NULL);
:)
It's much better to use NULL here rather than literal zero because the
reader of this code can then say "ah-hah, we're passing in a pointer".
Whereas plain old "0" could be a pointer or a scalar.
We should always use NULL to represent a null pointer in the kernel.
The one acceptable exception is when testing for nullness:
if (ptr1)
if (!ptr2)
Often people will use
if (ptr1 != NULL)
if (ptr2 == NULL)
in this case as well. (I prefer the shorter version personally, but
either is OK).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists