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 julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
