On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:45:05AM +0200, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
>
> When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0.
...
> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
> index 04c7e1d..16fccbe 100644
> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ smp_call_function (void (*func) (void *i
>
> if (retry) {
> spin_lock (&lock);
> - while (smp_call_function_data != 0)
> + while (smp_call_function_data != NULL)
> barrier();
> }
> else {
Yoann,
Thanks!
I like comparing pointers to NULL since it makes it explicit we
are dealing with a pointer and is consistent with the assignment to NULL
later in the code.
But I'd like the later comparisons of smp_call_function_data to be
consistent with your suggestion above.
Patch below adds another "!= NULL".
thanks
grant
Signed-off-by: Grant Grundler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
index 04c7e1d..c9ce659 100644
--- a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c
@@ -333,12 +333,12 @@ smp_call_function (void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
int retry, int wait)
if (retry) {
spin_lock (&lock);
- while (smp_call_function_data != 0)
+ while (smp_call_function_data != NULL)
barrier();
}
else {
spin_lock (&lock);
- if (smp_call_function_data) {
+ if (smp_call_function_data != NULL) {
spin_unlock (&lock);
return -EBUSY;
}
-
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/
