Hi. On Monday 30 January 2006 19:49, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> How about nr==0, it would make it more obvious. > > > > I am inclined to agree. `!nr' seems to imply some sort of an error > > condition; > > ! seems to imply a boolean usually. (If this was Java, this would even > be enforced.) If this was Java! Thank goodness it's not :> Nigel > However, !x (and x) is scattered all around the kernel where > x==0,x!=0 (or x==NULL,x!=NULL) would be more readable. > > > perhaps a comment could be placed in order to make why the case of (nr == > > 0) is being ignored. > > > > - Yuki. > > Jan Engelhardt
Attachment:
pgppq0CtbmIkr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH] pid: Don't hash pid 0.
- From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
- Re: [PATCH] pid: Don't hash pid 0.
- From: Yuki Cuss <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] pid: Don't hash pid 0.
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] pid: Don't hash pid 0.
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.16-rc1-git4] accessfs: a permission managing filesystem
- Next by Date: Re: pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow)
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] pid: Don't hash pid 0.
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] pid: Don't hash pid 0.
- Index(es):