+1 for deleting this particular warning. On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 11 September 2015 at 13:02, Stuart Haslam <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:37:16PM -0400, Mike Holmes wrote: >> > Checkpatch is being fixed for that flaw, it was raised but Nicholas, >> Viresh >> > and myself upstream. >> > >> >> Which flaw, the fact that it does complain about x == NULL or that it >> doesn't complain about NULL == x? >> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/27/469 > > >> >> Anyway, personally I don't have a problem with any of these; >> >> if (x == NULL) >> if (NULL == x) >> if (!x) >> >> As long as they're appropriate in the context, so +1 from me for just >> removing the check in the hope we can stop talking about it. >> > > I also have no objection to these three, depending on context each can be > the most readable > > >> >> -- >> Stuart. >> > > > > -- > Mike Holmes > Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group > Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs > > >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
