From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266179AbUGJHDT (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:03:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266177AbUGJHDT (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:03:19 -0400 Received: from mail-relay-3.tiscali.it ([212.123.84.93]:42405 "EHLO mail-relay-3.tiscali.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266175AbUGJHDL (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:03:11 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:02:55 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: "P. Benie" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use NULL instead of integer 0 in security/selinux/ Message-ID: <20040710070255.GG20947@dualathlon.random> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 13D9 8355 295F 4823 7C49 C012 DFA1 686E 68B9 CB43 X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 CC A0 71 81 F4 A0 63 AC C0 4B 81 1D 8C 15 C8 E5 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 12:43:16PM +0100, P. Benie wrote: > the integer 0 and null pointers are not the same, the compiler will > perform the appropriate conversion for you, so it is always correct to > define NULL as (void *)0. exactly, the compiler knows about that. > Personally, I always use 0 and NULL for integers and null pointers > respectively, but that's because of long estalished conventions that make > the code readabile, rather than anything to do with validity of the code. Yep.