Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262227AbTFFSlX (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:41:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262202AbTFFSlX (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:41:23 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:56071 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262227AbTFFSlV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:41:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:54:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel cc: Steven Cole , Subject: Re: [Patch] 2.5.70-bk11 zlib cleanup #3 Z_NULL In-Reply-To: <20030606183920.GC10487@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by deepthought.transmeta.com id h56IsjB07327 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 921 Lines: 29 On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, J?rn Engel wrote: > > How do you feel about "if (z->state->blocks != NULL)"? Remove the > pointless !=NULL or keep it? I don't mind it, but it doesn't buy much. It's actually in some other cases where I think there is a readability issue, ie in more complex conditionals I personally prefer the simpler cersion, ie I much prefer something like if (ptr && ptr->ops && ptr->ops->shutdown) ptr->ops->shutdown(ptr, xxxx); over the pointless NULL-masturbation in something like if (ptr != NULL && ptr->ops != NULL && ptr->ops->shutdown != NULL) ptr->ops->shutdown(ptr, xxxx) which I just is much less readable than the simple version. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/