On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 09:09 +0200, Nicolas Morey Chaisemartin wrote:
> > From: "Joe Perches"
[]
> > And because most likely, "CONST test variable" checks like
> > NULL != foo
> > and
> > 0 < bar
> >
> > should probably be a separate test.
[]
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/script
- Original Message -
> From: "Joe Perches"
> To: "Viresh Kumar"
> Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "Dan Carpenter"
> , "Greg KH"
> , "LKML" , "Mike
> Holmes" ,
> nmo...@kalray.eu
> Sent: Thursday, 27
On Thu, 2015-08-27 at 07:49 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Few colleagues asked me why isn't checkpatch warning for (NULL == ptr)
> or (NULL != ptr) checks, as it warns for (ptr == NULL) and (ptr != NULL).
>
> Did you miss it? or was it intentional ?
I didn't miss it.
NULL == foo is relatively unu
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> It seems there are more and more uses of "if (!ptr)"
> in preference to "if (ptr == NULL)" so add a --strict
> test to emit a message when using the latter form.
>
> This also finds (ptr != NULL).
>
> Fix it too if desired.
>
> Signed-off-by:
4 matches
Mail list logo
