Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755657Ab1D0BcF (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:32:05 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123]:34684 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752349Ab1D0BcE (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:32:04 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=qyUSAyc82z9xLljZQc9ErY9Tl2GSEfqK/XYZS35I9d8= c=1 sm=0 a=i38SgkEfDKkA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=CoApHu1UbJB_HPmVXOAA:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/string.h: Introduce streq macro. From: Steven Rostedt To: "Ted Ts'o" Cc: Thiago Farina , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20110427005243.GI9486@thunk.org> References: <20110427005243.GI9486@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:32:01 -0400 Message-ID: <1303867921.18763.45.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1896 Lines: 60 On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:52 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:49:49PM -0300, Thiago Farina wrote: > > This macro is arguably more readable than its variants: > > - !strcmp(a, b) > > - strcmp(a, b) == 0 > > > > Signed-off-by: Thiago Farina > > I don't think this is not a good idea. > > First of all, changing 2800 instances of strcmp will induce a huge > amount of code churn, that will cause patches to break, etc. And > whether streq() looks better is going to be very much a case of > personal preference. I'm so used to !strcmp(a, b) that streq(a, b) > would be harder for me, just because I'm not used to it. > > So I'd NACK a change like this to any parts of the kernel that I'm > maintaining. If another people feel that way, it's not clear that > having two different conventions in the kernel would necessarily help... > I agree that this entire thing is all about personal preference, and that a lot of these conventions is determined by who maintains the code. This all started when I changed code that I need to maintain from: if (0 == var) to if (var == 0) I understand why the first is done, but it just trips me up every time I see it. I also prefer: if (strcmp(a, b) == 0) over if (!strcmp(a, b)) because the ! in that statement makes my mind say "a != b". But again, this is all about preference. As for me, I would not mind a streq() as it is a different function/macro, that I would not get it confused with strcmp(). I acked the patch, because I would not NAK changes that converted the strcmp() to streq() in my code (as long as it was done correctly). -- Steve -- 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/