Re: [PATCH] pid: Don't hash pid 0.

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]>

• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]