[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303488341.6225.2.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:05:41 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thiago Farina <tfransosi@...il.com>
Cc: John Reiser <jreiser@...wagon.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/11] ftrace/trivial: Clean up recordmcount.c to
use Linux style comparisons
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 12:52 -0300, Thiago Farina wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:09 PM, John Reiser <jreiser@...wagon.com> wrote:
> > I consider "0==strcmp(" to be an idiom. Too often "strcmp(...) == 0"
> > overflows my mental stack because of the typographic width of the operands
> > in the source code. If you still object in this case then please consider
> > using something like:
> > #define strequ(a,b) (strcmp((a), (b)) == 0)
> > or
> > static int strequ(char const *a, char const *b)
> > {
> > return strcmp(a, b) == 0;
> > }
> > which names the idiom.
> >
>
> Maybe str_eq? Or even just streq? And also just !strcmp(a,b).
streq() is something I woudn't mind.
I've too often confused !strcmp(a,b) as "!streq()" which is not the
case. Which is why I always use strcmp(a,b) == 0, which to me I see the
'==' as eq. I also consider strcmp(a,b) != 0 as not equal. Again, the
mind that sees "==" and "!=" can just translate that to human language.
Where !strcmp() is just gibberish ;)
-- Steve
--
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