Re: [PATCH 09/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/m68knommu

2007-07-29 Thread Greg Ungerer
Hi Yoann, Yoann Padioleau wrote: When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0. Signed-off-by: Yoann Padioleau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Acked-by: Greg Ungerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- comempci.c |2 +- 1 file changed, 1

Re: [PATCH 09/68] 0 - NULL, for arch/m68knommu

2007-07-29 Thread Greg Ungerer
Hi Yoann, Yoann Padioleau wrote: When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0. Signed-off-by: Yoann Padioleau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Acked-by: Greg Ungerer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- comempci.c |2 +- 1 file changed, 1

[PATCH 09/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/m68knommu

2007-07-27 Thread Yoann Padioleau
When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0. Here is an excerpt of the semantic patch: @@ expression *E; @@ E == - 0 + NULL @@ expression *E; @@ E != - 0 + NULL Signed-off-by: Yoann Padioleau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

[PATCH 09/68] 0 - NULL, for arch/m68knommu

2007-07-27 Thread Yoann Padioleau
When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0. Here is an excerpt of the semantic patch: @@ expression *E; @@ E == - 0 + NULL @@ expression *E; @@ E != - 0 + NULL Signed-off-by: Yoann Padioleau [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---