* [PATCH 11/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/parisc
@ 2007-07-27 9:45 Yoann Padioleau
2007-07-30 5:39 ` Grant Grundler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Yoann Padioleau @ 2007-07-27 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors; +Cc: matthew, grundler, kyle, parisc-linux, akpm, linux-kernel
When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0.
Here is an excerpt of the semantic patch:
@@
expression *E;
@@
E ==
- 0
+ NULL
@@
expression *E;
@@
E !=
- 0
+ NULL
Signed-off-by: Yoann Padioleau <padator@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: matthew@wil.cx
Cc: grundler@parisc-linux.org
Cc: kyle@parisc-linux.org
Cc: parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
---
smp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
index 04c7e1d..16fccbe 100644
--- a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
@@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ smp_call_function (void (*func) (void *i
if (retry) {
spin_lock (&lock);
- while (smp_call_function_data != 0)
+ while (smp_call_function_data != NULL)
barrier();
}
else {
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 11/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/parisc
2007-07-27 9:45 [PATCH 11/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/parisc Yoann Padioleau
@ 2007-07-30 5:39 ` Grant Grundler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Grant Grundler @ 2007-07-30 5:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yoann Padioleau
Cc: kernel-janitors, matthew, grundler, kyle, parisc-linux, akpm,
linux-kernel
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:45:05AM +0200, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
>
> When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0.
...
> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
> index 04c7e1d..16fccbe 100644
> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ smp_call_function (void (*func) (void *i
>
> if (retry) {
> spin_lock (&lock);
> - while (smp_call_function_data != 0)
> + while (smp_call_function_data != NULL)
> barrier();
> }
> else {
Yoann,
Thanks!
I like comparing pointers to NULL since it makes it explicit we
are dealing with a pointer and is consistent with the assignment to NULL
later in the code.
But I'd like the later comparisons of smp_call_function_data to be
consistent with your suggestion above.
Patch below adds another "!= NULL".
thanks
grant
Signed-off-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org>
diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
index 04c7e1d..c9ce659 100644
--- a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
@@ -333,12 +333,12 @@ smp_call_function (void (*func) (void *info), void *info, int retry, int wait)
if (retry) {
spin_lock (&lock);
- while (smp_call_function_data != 0)
+ while (smp_call_function_data != NULL)
barrier();
}
else {
spin_lock (&lock);
- if (smp_call_function_data) {
+ if (smp_call_function_data != NULL) {
spin_unlock (&lock);
return -EBUSY;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-30 6:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-07-27 9:45 [PATCH 11/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/parisc Yoann Padioleau
2007-07-30 5:39 ` Grant Grundler
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox