On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:45:05AM +0200, Yoann Padioleau wrote: > > When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0. ... > diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c > index 04c7e1d..16fccbe 100644 > --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c > +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c > @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ smp_call_function (void (*func) (void *i > > if (retry) { > spin_lock (&lock); > - while (smp_call_function_data != 0) > + while (smp_call_function_data != NULL) > barrier(); > } > else {
Yoann, Thanks! I like comparing pointers to NULL since it makes it explicit we are dealing with a pointer and is consistent with the assignment to NULL later in the code. But I'd like the later comparisons of smp_call_function_data to be consistent with your suggestion above. Patch below adds another "!= NULL". thanks grant Signed-off-by: Grant Grundler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c index 04c7e1d..c9ce659 100644 --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/smp.c @@ -333,12 +333,12 @@ smp_call_function (void (*func) (void *info), void *info, int retry, int wait) if (retry) { spin_lock (&lock); - while (smp_call_function_data != 0) + while (smp_call_function_data != NULL) barrier(); } else { spin_lock (&lock); - if (smp_call_function_data) { + if (smp_call_function_data != NULL) { spin_unlock (&lock); return -EBUSY; } - 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/