From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Frank Haverkamp <haver@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Jörg-Stephan Vogt" <jsvogt@de.ibm.com>,
"Michael Rüttger" <michael@ibmra.de>
Subject: Re: [3/3] GenWQE: Adjust 12 checks for null pointers
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:50:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15ccaf5d-3601-e895-900b-078fbca148d6@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f0998daeca45411ab0b161464ac2931d@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> I personally like the explicit compare (ptr != NULL) more than the !ptr notation.
Coding style aspects can evolve, can't they?
> When was the checkpatch.pl script modified to suggest the latter notation?
Would you like to take another look at the software update “checkpatch: add
--strict "pointer comparison to NULL" test” from 2014-12-10?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b75ac618df751b927469ddbca63cf151a62f0f9d
> Is there any advantage other than the shorter notation?
* Do you eventually care for an influence on the run time characteristics
for the compilation of this software module?
* How do you think about to reduce the dependency on a special preprocessor symbol?
Regards,
Markus
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-08 13:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-08 9:40 [PATCH 0/3] GenWQE: Adjustments for some function implementations SF Markus Elfring
2018-01-08 9:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] GenWQE: Delete an error message for a failed memory allocation in genwqe_user_vmap() SF Markus Elfring
2018-01-08 12:45 ` haver
2018-01-08 13:23 ` Dan Carpenter
2018-01-08 13:40 ` haver
2018-01-08 13:24 ` SF Markus Elfring
2018-01-08 13:42 ` haver
2018-01-08 9:42 ` [PATCH 2/3] GenWQE: Fix a typo in two comments SF Markus Elfring
2018-01-08 12:47 ` haver
2018-01-08 9:43 ` [PATCH 3/3] GenWQE: Adjust 12 checks for null pointers SF Markus Elfring
2018-01-08 12:50 ` haver
2018-01-08 13:50 ` SF Markus Elfring [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=15ccaf5d-3601-e895-900b-078fbca148d6@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=haver@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jsvogt@de.ibm.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael@ibmra.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox