From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/15] bus: add helper to find which bus holds a device Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 20:29:06 +0200 Message-ID: <1635095.dVgJJgmtZI@xps> References: <2216663.aYTdufOMPG@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet , Shreyansh Jain To: Jan Blunck Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7982BE1 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 20:29:08 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 30/06/2017 18:46, Jan Blunck: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 29/06/2017 20:21, Jan Blunck: > >> +static int > >> +bus_find_device(const struct rte_bus *bus, const void *_dev) > >> +{ > >> + struct rte_device *dev; > >> + > >> + dev = bus->find_device(NULL, cmp_rte_device, _dev); > >> + return !dev; > >> +} > > > > The preferred code style is to make explicit the NULL comparisons: > > return dev == NULL; > > Oh, interesting ... not a lot of C++ programmers around here I guess. > > Does this mean you also want me to make integer tests explicit again 0? Good question, I don't know. I know only this part of the coding rules: http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#null-pointers