linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] saa7146: fix sparse warnings

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: <1204481204.23005.8.camel@brick>
Date:	Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:06:44 -0800
From:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To:	Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...il.com>
Cc:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] saa7146: fix sparse warnings

On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 20:34 +0300, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
> Harvey Harrison пишет:
> >  
> > -	if( 0 != (dev->ext)) {
> > +	if( NULL != (dev->ext)) {
> 
> At the risk of looking an idiot, I'm taking a liberty to ask what is
> the point in explicit comparison to zero in conditional operators? Is
> it not a fundamental C idiom to write

<snip>

Yes, that's how I would have written it, but I tried to keep with the
prevailing style in that file.  I suppose I could see an argument for
consistency if you had a long series of if() statements to keep a
similar style.

if (foo == value1)

if (bar == value2)

if (baz == NULL)

I'll leave the discussion of putting the constant first in the comparison
for someone else to comment on.

Harvey

--
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/