diff for duplicates of <20070801202815.GL11166@waste.org> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index bc70806..da93a90 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -15,19 +15,19 @@ On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:38:39PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > >>>would be able to pick it out as i'm not familiar with what level that > >>>thing runs at > >>> -> >>Didn't he mean "x = NULL" > "!x"? +> >>Didn't he mean "x == NULL" > "!x"? > >> > > > >i'm sure i understand your meaning of ">" ... are you saying that "x -> >= NULL" is greater (preferred) to "!x" or are you saying that "x = +> >== NULL" is greater (preferred) to "!x" or are you saying that "x == > >NULL" should be changed to "!x" ? > > > If I understood Robin correctly, he suggested that checkpatch.pl would -> tell to convert "x = NULL" to "!x", if that would be the preferred way. +> tell to convert "x == NULL" to "!x", if that would be the preferred way. > >i dont think the former case can be checked by checkpatch.pl, but the > >latter certainly can ... but i'd be very skeptical you could get the -> >wider LKML audience to sign off one way or the other wrt to "x = -> >NULL" vs "!x". you can certainly get people to sign off on "x = 0" +> >wider LKML audience to sign off one way or the other wrt to "x == +> >NULL" vs "!x". you can certainly get people to sign off on "x == 0" > >being wrong when x is a pointer. > > > I agree! diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 68fe01e..8c0e8b6 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ "ref\046B062AF.1040907@student.ltu.se\0" "From\0Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>\0" "Subject\0Re: [PATCH 06/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/frv\0" - "Date\0Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:28:15 +0000\0" + "Date\0Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:28:15 -0500\0" "To\0Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>\0" "Cc\0Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com>" Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> @@ -36,19 +36,19 @@ "> >>>would be able to pick it out as i'm not familiar with what level that\n" "> >>>thing runs at\n" "> >>> \n" - "> >>Didn't he mean \"x = NULL\" > \"!x\"?\n" + "> >>Didn't he mean \"x == NULL\" > \"!x\"?\n" "> >> \n" "> >\n" "> >i'm sure i understand your meaning of \">\" ... are you saying that \"x\n" - "> >= NULL\" is greater (preferred) to \"!x\" or are you saying that \"x =\n" + "> >== NULL\" is greater (preferred) to \"!x\" or are you saying that \"x ==\n" "> >NULL\" should be changed to \"!x\" ?\n" "> > \n" "> If I understood Robin correctly, he suggested that checkpatch.pl would \n" - "> tell to convert \"x = NULL\" to \"!x\", if that would be the preferred way.\n" + "> tell to convert \"x == NULL\" to \"!x\", if that would be the preferred way.\n" "> >i dont think the former case can be checked by checkpatch.pl, but the\n" "> >latter certainly can ... but i'd be very skeptical you could get the\n" - "> >wider LKML audience to sign off one way or the other wrt to \"x =\n" - "> >NULL\" vs \"!x\". you can certainly get people to sign off on \"x = 0\"\n" + "> >wider LKML audience to sign off one way or the other wrt to \"x ==\n" + "> >NULL\" vs \"!x\". you can certainly get people to sign off on \"x == 0\"\n" "> >being wrong when x is a pointer.\n" "> > \n" "> I agree!\n" @@ -62,4 +62,4 @@ "-- \n" Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -a33d2c73c4264e7069c97572d437cbe2e34846b07305f9b382f0042c4cf3737e +647ef3ce6d68c1d66186ee25916c8da7e88ea7bf0abda7a181e028928bb43b85
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.