Went along with the existing file style.
drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:309:6: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:311:8: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:319:7: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:319:28: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:325:7: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:325:28: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
drivers/media/common/saa7146_fops.c:275:12: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <[email protected]>
---
drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c | 8 ++++----
drivers/media/common/saa7146_fops.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c b/drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c
index 168a8d3..8c755a1 100644
--- a/drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c
+++ b/drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c
@@ -306,9 +306,9 @@ static irqreturn_t interrupt_hw(int irq, void *dev_id)
return IRQ_NONE;
}
- if( 0 != (dev->ext)) {
+ if( NULL != (dev->ext)) {
if( 0 != (dev->ext->irq_mask & isr )) {
- if( 0 != dev->ext->irq_func ) {
+ if( NULL != dev->ext->irq_func ) {
dev->ext->irq_func(dev, &isr);
}
isr &= ~dev->ext->irq_mask;
@@ -316,13 +316,13 @@ static irqreturn_t interrupt_hw(int irq, void *dev_id)
}
if (0 != (isr & (MASK_27))) {
DEB_INT(("irq: RPS0 (0x%08x).\n",isr));
- if( 0 != dev->vv_data && 0 != dev->vv_callback) {
+ if( NULL != dev->vv_data && NULL != dev->vv_callback) {
dev->vv_callback(dev,isr);
}
isr &= ~MASK_27;
}
if (0 != (isr & (MASK_28))) {
- if( 0 != dev->vv_data && 0 != dev->vv_callback) {
+ if( NULL != dev->vv_data && NULL != dev->vv_callback) {
dev->vv_callback(dev,isr);
}
isr &= ~MASK_28;
diff --git a/drivers/media/common/saa7146_fops.c b/drivers/media/common/saa7146_fops.c
index f0703d8..a73db79 100644
--- a/drivers/media/common/saa7146_fops.c
+++ b/drivers/media/common/saa7146_fops.c
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static int fops_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
result = 0;
out:
- if( fh != 0 && result != 0 ) {
+ if( fh != NULL && result != 0 ) {
kfree(fh);
file->private_data = NULL;
}
--
1.5.4.2.200.g99e75
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:52:36AM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
Could you please use more descriptive names? NULL noise removal
is not the same as shadowing or endianness annotations or endianness
fixes or __user/__iomem annotations/fixes, etc.
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 21:19 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:52:36AM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
>
> Could you please use more descriptive names? NULL noise removal
> is not the same as shadowing or endianness annotations or endianness
> fixes or __user/__iomem annotations/fixes, etc.
Point taken, will do so going forward.
For now, I'm just doing the trivial ones to make the more interesting
warnings stand out a little better.
Harvey
Harvey Harrison ?????:
> Went along with the existing file style.
> drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:309:6: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:311:8: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:319:7: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:319:28: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:325:7: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c:325:28: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> drivers/media/common/saa7146_fops.c:275:12: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
>
> Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c | 8 ++++----
> drivers/media/common/saa7146_fops.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c b/drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c
> index 168a8d3..8c755a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/common/saa7146_core.c
> @@ -306,9 +306,9 @@ static irqreturn_t interrupt_hw(int irq, void *dev_id)
> return IRQ_NONE;
> }
>
> - if( 0 != (dev->ext)) {
> + if( NULL != (dev->ext)) {
At the risk of looking an idiot, I'm taking a liberty to ask what is
the point in explicit comparison to zero in conditional operators? Is
it not a fundamental C idiom to write
if (a) {
}
instead of
if (a != 0) {
}
and, similarly, to write
if (!a) {
}
instead of
if (a == 0) {
}
?
Thanks,
Dmitri
On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 20:34 +0300, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
> Harvey Harrison пишет:
> >
> > - if( 0 != (dev->ext)) {
> > + if( NULL != (dev->ext)) {
>
> At the risk of looking an idiot, I'm taking a liberty to ask what is
> the point in explicit comparison to zero in conditional operators? Is
> it not a fundamental C idiom to write
<snip>
Yes, that's how I would have written it, but I tried to keep with the
prevailing style in that file. I suppose I could see an argument for
consistency if you had a long series of if() statements to keep a
similar style.
if (foo == value1)
if (bar == value2)
if (baz == NULL)
I'll leave the discussion of putting the constant first in the comparison
for someone else to comment on.
Harvey
Harvey Harrison пишет:
> On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 20:34 +0300, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
>> Harvey Harrison пишет:
>>>
>>> - if( 0 != (dev->ext)) {
>>> + if( NULL != (dev->ext)) {
>> At the risk of looking an idiot, I'm taking a liberty to ask what is
>> the point in explicit comparison to zero in conditional operators? Is
>> it not a fundamental C idiom to write
>
> <snip>
>
> Yes, that's how I would have written it, but I tried to keep with the
> prevailing style in that file. I suppose I could see an argument for
> consistency if you had a long series of if() statements to keep a
> similar style.
To me it looks that the original style in this file can be sacrificed
in favor of
1) satisfying the coding style rules of the kernel;
2) keeping with informal, but commonly known idioms of C language.
So I thought that while you're at it, you could also comb through
this file and make the checkpatch.pl script happy with it.
But this is just my very personal opinion :)
Dmitri
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:06:44 -0800 Harvey Harrison <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 20:34 +0300, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
> > Harvey Harrison пишет:
> > >
> > > - if( 0 != (dev->ext)) {
> > > + if( NULL != (dev->ext)) {
> >
> > At the risk of looking an idiot, I'm taking a liberty to ask what is
> > the point in explicit comparison to zero in conditional operators? Is
> > it not a fundamental C idiom to write
>
> <snip>
>
> Yes, that's how I would have written it, but I tried to keep with the
> prevailing style in that file.
I'm not a bit fan of the match-the-existing-style approach.
You'll find that files which started out with a non-standard style already
contain a mixup of styles, because later changes were often made in
standard-style.
And given that we're churning the code anyway, we might as well fix it up now.
Yes, that'll make the code look partially-weird rather than wholly-weird,
but I doubt if that will harm anyone much.