Re: [PATCH 2/2] [condingstyle] Add chapter on tests

["Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On May 25 2007 10:25, Auke Kok wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
> > index f518395..3635b38 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/CodingStyle
> > +++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle
> > @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ int fun(int a)
> > 	int result = 0;
> > 	char *buffer = kmalloc(SIZE);
> >
> > -	if (buffer == NULL)
> > +	if (!buffer)
> > 		return -ENOMEM;
>
> Please don't do this. With ==NULL/!=NULL, it is clear what
> <randomvariable> could be (integer or pointer) without needing
> to look it up. It also reads quite strange: "if not buffer".
> For bools ('adjectives' / 'is a'), it works, not so much for ptrs.
> Hence:
>
> > +If you give your variables and pointers good names, there is never a need
> > +to compare the value stored in that variable to NULL or true/false, so
> > +omit all that and keep it short.
>
> > +	ptr = s->next;
> > +	if (!ptr)
> > +		return;
>
> Not agreed.

that piece is a copy of mm/slab.c, and all over the core components of the 
kernel (even fs/inode.c written by Linus). I strongly think that "== NULL" 
doesn't add anything and that well-written functions and well-named variables 
really do not need the extra fluff.

Auke
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/