[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190509144132.GF21059@kadam>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 17:41:33 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] staging: vchiq: stop explicitly comparing with
zero to catch errors
On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:31:36PM +0200, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> The vchiq code tends to follow a coding pattern that's not accepted as
> per the Linux kernel coding style
>
> We have this:
> if (expression != 0)
>
> We want this:
> if (expression)
>
> We make an exception if the expression refers to a size, in which case
> it's accepted for the sake of clarity.
It's not really Linux kernel style, it's just my style... I wouldn't
have complained if the original code were consistent one way or the
other. But since I was encouraging you to pick a style and use it
consistently, then I'm always going to advocate my style... :P
Anyway, thanks! Looks good to me.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists