This wasn't an issue before the latest checkpatch update. So, we have a code base that is already doing both (ptr == NULL) and !ptr. We are not jumping around, checkpatch was changed.
To me both ways are OK: if (ptr == NULL) if (ptr != NULL) if (ptr) if (!ptr) It depends on the context and e.g. pointer variable or function naming, which one: direct or inverted logic results more readable code. What's not OK is that style checker prevents user to compare against a @retval (NULL) defined in the API. With pointers, NULL results a cleaner API definition than 0. /** * Shared memory block address * * @param[in] shm Block handle * * @return Memory block address * @retval NULL on failure */ void *odp_shm_addr(odp_shm_t shm); -Petri > -----Original Message----- > From: lng-odp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > EXT Maxim Uvarov > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] new checkpatch CHECK level warning > > The bad thing is that we are going to jump back and forth with style > define. That > does not look good. Allowing bunch of different styles is also bad. We > should allow only > one style of coding for that thing. I like kernels short checks i.e. if > (!x). > > Sorry, -1. > > Maxim. > > On 09/12/15 00:29, Bill Fischofer wrote: > > +1 for deleting this particular warning. > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Mike Holmes <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 11 September 2015 at 13:02, Stuart Haslam > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:37:16PM -0400, Mike Holmes wrote: > > > Checkpatch is being fixed for that flaw, it was raised but > > Nicholas, Viresh > > > and myself upstream. > > > > > > > Which flaw, the fact that it does complain about x == NULL or > > that it > > doesn't complain about NULL == x? > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/27/469 > > > > > > Anyway, personally I don't have a problem with any of these; > > > > if (x == NULL) > > if (NULL == x) > > if (!x) > > > > As long as they're appropriate in the context, so +1 from me > > for just > > removing the check in the hope we can stop talking about it. > > > > > > I also have no objection to these three, depending on context > > each can be the most readable > > > > > > -- > > Stuart. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mike Holmes > > Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group > > Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/>***│ *Open source software for > > ARM SoCs > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lng-odp mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
