From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=FCsch?= Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:15:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V2] b43: rfkill: use HI enabled bit for all devices In-Reply-To: (sfid-20101119_180023_531984_6B3BA604) References: <1290028477-6462-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <1290184873.23033.3.camel@maggie> (sfid-20101119_180023_531984_6B3BA604) Message-ID: <1290186917.23033.8.camel@maggie> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= Stefanik Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 17:59 +0100, G?bor Stefanik wrote: > > There's no difference. > > (int)0 implicitly casts to false and anything else to true. > > I know, just for the sake of coding style. All of my code in b43 uses 0/1. That's just less characters to write and is as readable as true/false (to me). And most b43 G code existed before bool was added to the kernel. ;) > Same as initializing > pointers to NULL, not 0 (though AFAIK there are platforms where 0x0 is > a valid memory address, so using NULL is more than just coding style). No it is not. C handles the case for NULL not being zero and generates correct code even if 0 is used. But Linux doesn't support those platforms due to other reasons (memset(..., 0, ...) on struct with pointers, for example). -- Greetings Michael.