On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 13:40 +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday November 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Remove defconfig ptr comparison to 0
> >
> > Remove sparse warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svcshare.c b/fs/lockd/svcshare.c
> > index 068886d..98548ad 100644
> > --- a/fs/lockd/svcshare.c
> > +++ b/fs/lockd/svcshare.c
> > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ nlmsvc_unshare_file(struct nlm_host *host, struct
> > nlm_file *file,
> > struct nlm_share *share, **shpp;
> > struct xdr_netobj *oh = &argp->lock.oh;
> >
> > - for (shpp = &file->f_shares; (share = *shpp) != 0; shpp =
> > &share->s_next) {
> > + for (shpp = &file->f_shares; (share = *shpp); shpp = &share->s_next) {
> > if (share->s_host == host && nlm_cmp_owner(share, oh)) {
> > *shpp = share->s_next;
> > kfree(share);
> >
>
> I particularly disagree with this change as it now looked like it
> could be an '==' comparison that was mistyped. Making it
> ....; (share = *shpp) != NULL; ....
There would also be the minor fact that the original test is being
inverted in this 'fix'. An accurate fix should at the very least be
!(share = *shpp).
> makes the intent clear.
It would be a lot cleaner just to pull the entire assignment out of the
for() statement. IOW:
for (shpp = &file->f_shares; *shpp != NULL; shpp = &(*shpp)->s_next) {
struct nlm_share *share = *shpp;
-
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/
