From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 05:00:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 05:00:12 -0400 Received: from hermine.idb.hist.no ([158.38.50.15]:39431 "HELO hermine.idb.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 04:59:59 -0400 Message-ID: <3AF663F1.E04D90CE@idb.hist.no> Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:59:29 +0200 From: Helge Hafting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-pre7 i686) X-Accept-Language: no, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Ringstrom CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: page_launder() bug In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Tobias Ringstrom wrote: > > On Sun, 6 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > > It is the most straightforward way to make a '1' or '0' > > integer from the NULL state of a pointer. > > But is it really specified in the C "standards" to be exctly zero or one, > and not zero and non-zero? !0 is 1. !(anything else) is 0. It is zero and one, not zero and "non-zero". So a !! construction gives zero if you have zero, and one if you had anything else. There's no doubt about it. > > IMHO, the ?: construct is way more readable and reliable. Thats your opinion. There are many others. Some don't like the ?: at all, for example. And some like all valid C. Helge Hafting