[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071023093216.06d8f415.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:32:16 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen)
Cc: Anas Nashif <nashif@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marek Dabek <marek.dabek@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel Manageability Engine Interface driver
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:04:29 -0400 lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:40:01AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > - Here:
> >
> > + if (0 == memcmp(&heci_wd_guid,
> >
> > we boringly prefer "if (foo == 0)" rather than "if (0 == foo)". (lots
> > of places).
>
> But 0 == blah is safer. If you accidentally do 0 = blah the compiler
> will tell you.
If you do 'if (blah = 0)' then compiler will tell you too. To all intents
and purposes this invalidates the reasons for doing `if (0 == blah)'.
> Just because people have always done it the other way
> around doesn't make it the right way to do it. I have noticed many
> people have started to realize this in the last few years.
>
> It is also much clearer that you are comparing against a constant and
> not doing an assignment when the constant comes before the variable.
>
> I think to encourage people doing it the less safe way is just silly.
It isn't less safe.
> Some places in the kernel that already uses the constant first are:
It impacts readability. All the aio code was implemented that way for a
few years and it drove everyone so batty that we undid it.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists