On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 11:44 +0200, Yoann Padioleau wrote: > 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] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- > > traps.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c b/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c > index 3909f5b..691c66d 100644 > --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c > +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c > @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ void dump_bfin_regs(struct pt_regs *fp, > } > > printk(KERN_EMERG "return address: [0x%p]; contents of:", retaddr); > - if (retaddr != 0 && retaddr <= (void *)physical_mem_end > + if (retaddr != NULL && retaddr <= (void *)physical_mem_end > #if L1_CODE_LENGTH != 0 > /* FIXME: Copy the code out of L1 Instruction SRAM through dma > memcpy. */
Why not just use " if (!E)" instead of " if (E != NULL)"? more readable? Thanks - Bryan Wu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
