On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Mar 12 2007 13:37, Cong WANG wrote: > > > > The following code is picked from drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c: > > > > static struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu_load(struct kvm *kvm, int vcpu_slot) > > { > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = &kvm->vcpus[vcpu_slot]; > > > > mutex_lock(&vcpu->mutex); > > if (unlikely(!vcpu->vmcs)) { > > mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex); > > return 0; > > } > > return kvm_arch_ops->vcpu_load(vcpu); > > } > > > > Obviously, it used 0 rather than NULL when returning a pointer to > > indicate an error. Should we fix such issue? > > Indeed. If it was for me, something like that should throw a compile error.
At least it does throw a sparse warning, and yes, it should be fixed. > >>[...] > > I think it's more clear to indicate we are using a pointer rather than > > an integer when we use NULL in kernel. But in userspace, using NULL is > > for portbility of the program, although most (*just* most, NOT all) of > > NULL's defination is ((void*)0). ;-) > > NULL has the same bit pattern as the number zero. (I'm not saying the bit > pattern is all zeroes. And I am not even sure if NULL ought to have the same > pattern as zero.) So C++ could use (void *)0, if it would let itself :p > > > > > > > > Jan > -- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/