On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 07:06 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote: > > > I added a checkpatch entry for this. > > Maybe some cocci test like this would be useful? > > > > @@ > > type t; > > t *p; > > @@ > > - p == NULL > > + !p > > > > @@ > > type t; > > t *p; > > @@ > > - p != NULL > > + p > > > > @@ > > type t; > > t *p; > > @@ > > - NULL == p > > + !p > > > > @@ > > type t; > > t *p; > > @@ > > - NULL != p > > + p > > This was discussed many years ago. I don't think that the change is > desirable in all cases. There are functions like kmalloc where NULL means > failure and !p seems like the reasonable choice. But there maybe other > cases where NULL is somehow a meaningful value. > > Here is a link to the part of the discussion: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/27/103
Yes, I agree with some of the things Al Viro said there, but isn't 'type t; t *p;' a subset of "expression *e"? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
