From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <530653D5.8010404@metafoo.de> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:13:25 +0100 From: Lars-Peter Clausen MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Cameron CC: Hartmut Knaack , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC]coding style for NULL pointer checks References: <5300ACC6.90509@gmx.de> <530109DE.3010607@metafoo.de> <53031C67.8060202@kernel.org> <53053609.40806@gmx.de> <53064FA8.9060104@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <53064FA8.9060104@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed List-ID: On 02/20/2014 07:55 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 19/02/14 22:54, Hartmut Knaack wrote: >> Jonathan Cameron schrieb: >>> On 16/02/14 18:56, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >>>> On 02/16/2014 01:19 PM, Hartmut Knaack wrote: >>>>> Hi together, >>>>> I noticed, that many pointers in the IIO subsystem are checked for >>>>> successful allocation in the way of "if (pointer == NULL)" or "if (pointer >>>>> != NULL)", while in a few cases the form of simply "if (!pointer)" or "if >>>>> (pointer)" is used. So, is there any interest in having a more consistent >>>>> style, and if so, for which one? >>>>> My personal preference is for the latter one. >>>> I think enforcing this is a bit to much nitpicking. So if you clean this up >>>> the other pattern will probably appear again in new drivers at some point. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, if you feel strongly about this, go ahead and send a patch. >>> My inclination on this is that there are better things to spend time on >>> but as they say scratch the itch if you really want to! >>> >>> I'd rather have the nice error patch cleanups you've been doing or >>> if you are really bored, there are lots of staging drivers in need of >>> tendour loving care! >>> >>> J >> Well, never mind then. Do you have some kind of To-Do-List? > Saddly I / we are never quite that organised. Tends to be mostly take > a nice cleanup that was applied to a driver and propagate it across similar > parts. One outstanding one right now is to use the shared_by infomask > elements recently introduced (by_dir and by_all) to get rid of as many > hand specified attributes as possible. The other big helpful thing > is to review other peoples submissions. >> Otherwise I would get back to my other projects. > That's fair enough. Nice to have some variety! >> Concerning the staging drivers, I miss some motivation to work on >> device drivers that I don't have the devices for. > That's fair enough. Strangely I can't remember when I last did any > work on a device I actually own ;) Still have a quite a few here > somewhere that don't have drivers, but need to get the soldering iron out > and never seem to get time. >> Therefor I was mainly focusing on the ad799x. So, by the way, which are >> currently the show-stoppers for the ad799x preventing a move out of staging? > None that I know of, other than a final review. Sounds like Lars is happy which > is always a good sign. >> And, are there any plans to provide documentation about the supported IIO >> devices (similar to hwmon)? > Err. we tried this for a bit on the iio-utils wiki page, but rapidly got > left behind. > > I guess it might be a useful resource if anyone fancies maintaining it? For the ADI drivers we actually do have quite a bit of documentation. But it is not in the kernel tree, but on our wiki: http://wiki.analog.com/resources/tools-software/linux-drivers-all - Lars