Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764318AbXHAKD0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 06:03:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759734AbXHAKDS (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 06:03:18 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.244]:46435 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755414AbXHAKDR (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 06:03:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=AxknRjlIp9coZMqyoQYc15+WHc1XwKryVdjQG3zU6fGC/lA0kU+rWSCs2Q6O4JNz39qSVEEHw6LYZWmWGa2jb7x8ik0cyUS1MXhf0aJ+y0hyk3vZ7ST999PSDFk8zY3awRpKQQkoJHV1By+U1HbfQ5CwlIUGxDkEfmAF8exxMog= Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0708010303j7f443b06lf9d77f6d36816237@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 06:03:16 -0400 From: "Mike Frysinger" To: "Richard Knutsson" Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/frv Cc: "Robin Getz" , "Yoann Padioleau" , "David Howells" , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <46AF255A.4050106@student.ltu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200707270944.LAA17167@ifs.emn.fr> <22618.1185531297@redhat.com> <87lkd29mk9.fsf@wanadoo.fr> <200707272138.23323.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> <8bd0f97a0707271837q5d5f31d9pe342e72ebf9368c1@mail.gmail.com> <46AF255A.4050106@student.ltu.se> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1320 Lines: 28 On 7/31/07, Richard Knutsson wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 7/27/07, Robin Getz wrote: > >> If there is a definite style or semantic preference that everyone should live > >> with - does it make sense to put checks in checkpatch.pl to enforce it? > > > > checkpatch.pl does not have enough semantic knowledge to know if the > > thing being tested is a pointer ... dont know if the sparse utility > > would be able to pick it out as i'm not familiar with what level that > > thing runs at > > Didn't he mean "x == NULL" > "!x"? i'm sure i understand your meaning of ">" ... are you saying that "x == NULL" is greater (preferred) to "!x" or are you saying that "x == NULL" should be changed to "!x" ? i dont think the former case can be checked by checkpatch.pl, but the latter certainly can ... but i'd be very skeptical you could get the wider LKML audience to sign off one way or the other wrt to "x == NULL" vs "!x". you can certainly get people to sign off on "x == 0" being wrong when x is a pointer. -mike - 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/