[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1328900585.22240.98.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:03:05 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>, bruce.w.allan@...el.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cocci@...u.dk,
Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] Re: [PATCH] scripts/coccinelle/misc/boolinit.cocci:
semantic patch for bool issues
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 20:55 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 10:51 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 20:44 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 09:45 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 18:11 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
> > > > Thanks Julia. It seems to work well.
> > > I wonder though, why would we want to change if (a == true) with if (a)
> > > etc? Julia did not provide the explanation in the commit message but
> > > referred to you and Rusty in the semantic patch.
> >
> > Testing booleans against specific values is poor form.
> > booleans should be tested or !tested.
>
> OK, so this is about taste, I thought there is a more serious reason.
But let me be clear - I am all for having this spatch in the kernel tree
- it is good for code hygiene.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists