Re: [RFC]coding style for NULL pointer checks

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

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?
>
> Hartmut
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>