On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 11:44 +0200, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
> When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0.
>
> Here is an excerpt of the semantic patch:
>
> @@
> expression *E;
> @@
>
> E ==
> - 0
> + NULL
>
> @@
> expression *E;
> @@
>
> E !=
> - 0
> + NULL
>
> Signed-off-by: Yoann Padioleau <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> ---
>
> traps.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c b/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c
> index 3909f5b..691c66d 100644
> --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ void dump_bfin_regs(struct pt_regs *fp,
> }
>
> printk(KERN_EMERG "return address: [0x%p]; contents of:", retaddr);
> - if (retaddr != 0 && retaddr <= (void *)physical_mem_end
> + if (retaddr != NULL && retaddr <= (void *)physical_mem_end
> #if L1_CODE_LENGTH != 0
> /* FIXME: Copy the code out of L1 Instruction SRAM through dma
> memcpy. */
Why not just use " if (!E)" instead of " if (E != NULL)"?
more readable?
Thanks
- Bryan Wu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
