From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from saturn.retrosnub.co.uk ([178.18.118.26]:53764 "EHLO saturn.retrosnub.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752497AbaBTSy5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:54:57 -0500 Message-ID: <53064FA8.9060104@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:55:36 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen CC: 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> In-Reply-To: <53053609.40806@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.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 >> >