[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161118105235.GB6266@mwanda>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:01:27 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/19] staging: lustre: libcfs: remove == 0 testing
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 02:35:50PM -0500, James Simmons wrote:
> Testing == 0 is not kernel style so remove this
> type of testing from libcfs.
>
That's not true. Checkpatch.pl won't complain.
Not everyone has thought about it or agrees with me but there are time
when == 0 is idiomatic. For example, if you are talking about the
*number* zero then it should probably be == 0. If it's like "rc == 0"
then "rc" doesn't mean the number it means success/fail so it should be
"if (!rc) ". But it's intuitive to say "if (len == 0) ".
The other place is strcmp() and friends where it's much more intuitive:
strcmp(a, b) == 0 means a == b
strcmp(a, b) < 0 means a < b
strcmp(a, b) != 0 means a != b
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists