[PATCH v2] staging: nvec: Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability.

[PATCH v2] staging: nvec: Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability.

[Tom Mounet]

Issue identified by checkpatch.

Signed-off-by: Tom Mounet <tommounet@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
 {
 	mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex);
 
-	if (msg != NULL)
+	if (msg)
 		*msg = NULL;
 
 	nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0];
@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
 
 	dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n");
 
-	if (msg != NULL)
+	if (msg)
 		*msg = nvec->last_sync_msg;
 	else
 		nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg);
-- 
2.39.2

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: nvec: Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability.

[Philipp Hortmann]

On 6/26/24 23:37, Tom Mounet wrote:
> Issue identified by checkpatch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Mounet <tommounet@gmail.com>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
>   {
>   	mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex);
>   
> -	if (msg != NULL)
> +	if (msg)
>   		*msg = NULL;
>   
>   	nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0];
> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
>   
>   	dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n");
>   
> -	if (msg != NULL)
> +	if (msg)
>   		*msg = nvec->last_sync_msg;
>   	else
>   		nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg);

Hi Tom,

please answer the why also in the description.

The change history is missing.

If you send in a third version of this patch please use a change 
history. Description from Dan under:
https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/

Thanks for your support.

Bye Philipp

Re: [PATCH v2] staging: nvec: Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability.

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:37:14PM +0200, Tom Mounet wrote:
> Issue identified by checkpatch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Mounet <tommounet@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c
> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
>  {
>  	mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex);
>  
> -	if (msg != NULL)
> +	if (msg)
>  		*msg = NULL;
>  
>  	nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0];
> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
>  
>  	dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n");
>  
> -	if (msg != NULL)
> +	if (msg)
>  		*msg = nvec->last_sync_msg;
>  	else
>  		nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg);
> -- 
> 2.39.2
> 
> 

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
  possibly, any description at all, in the email body.  Please read the
  section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what is needed in
  order to properly describe the change.

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
  did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
  needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot