linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/frv

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200707272138.23323.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:38:23 -0400
From:	Robin Getz <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org>
To:	"Yoann Padioleau" <padator@...adoo.fr>
Cc:	"David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/frv

On Fri 27 Jul 2007 06:18, Yoann Padioleau pondered:
> David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> writes:
> 
> > Yoann Padioleau <padator@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to
> 0.
> >
> > Can you make them of style:
> >
> > 	if (!x)
> 
> Yes I can. I can make another semantic patch later to do that
> transformation. But some people may prefer (x == NULL) to (!x)
> so I don't know. I think that transformation 
> some 0 to NULL is less controversial.
> 
> 
> >
> > instead?

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?

-Robin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/