On 5/27/07, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that piece is a copy of mm/slab.c, and all over the core components of the
kernel (even fs/inode.c written by Linus). I strongly think that "== NULL"
doesn't add anything and that well-written functions and well-named variables
really do not need
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On May 25 2007 10:25, Auke Kok wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
index f518395..3635b38 100644
--- a/Documentation/CodingStyle
+++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle
@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ int fun(int a)
int result = 0;
char
On 25/05/07, Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Several standards have been established on how to format tests and use
NULL/false/true tests.
Hmm, this may or may not be a good idea for CodingStyle, I'll leave
that up to others.
But, if you are going to renumber chapters then please also fix
On 25/05/07, Auke Kok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Several standards have been established on how to format tests and use
NULL/false/true tests.
Hmm, this may or may not be a good idea for CodingStyle, I'll leave
that up to others.
But, if you are going to renumber chapters then please also fix up
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On May 25 2007 10:25, Auke Kok wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
index f518395..3635b38 100644
--- a/Documentation/CodingStyle
+++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle
@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ int fun(int a)
int result = 0;
char
On 5/27/07, Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that piece is a copy of mm/slab.c, and all over the core components of the
kernel (even fs/inode.c written by Linus). I strongly think that == NULL
doesn't add anything and that well-written functions and well-named variables
really do not need the
On May 25 2007 10:25, Auke Kok wrote:
>diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
>index f518395..3635b38 100644
>--- a/Documentation/CodingStyle
>+++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle
>@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ int fun(int a)
> int result = 0;
> char *buffer =
On May 25 2007 10:25, Auke Kok wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle
index f518395..3635b38 100644
--- a/Documentation/CodingStyle
+++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle
@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ int fun(int a)
int result = 0;
char *buffer = kmalloc(SIZE);
-
Stefan Richter wrote:
Auke Kok wrote:
+If you give your variables and pointers good names, there is never a need
+to compare the value stored in that variable to NULL or true/false, so
+omit all that and keep it short.
I agree with this in principle. But do we have to standardize it?
yes,
Auke Kok wrote:
> +If you give your variables and pointers good names, there is never a need
> +to compare the value stored in that variable to NULL or true/false, so
> +omit all that and keep it short.
I agree with this in principle. But do we have to standardize it?
--
Stefan Richter
Several standards have been established on how to format tests and use
NULL/false/true tests.
Signed-off-by: Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/CodingStyle | 51 +++--
1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git
Several standards have been established on how to format tests and use
NULL/false/true tests.
Signed-off-by: Auke Kok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/CodingStyle | 51 +++--
1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git
Stefan Richter wrote:
Auke Kok wrote:
+If you give your variables and pointers good names, there is never a need
+to compare the value stored in that variable to NULL or true/false, so
+omit all that and keep it short.
I agree with this in principle. But do we have to standardize it?
yes,
Auke Kok wrote:
+If you give your variables and pointers good names, there is never a need
+to compare the value stored in that variable to NULL or true/false, so
+omit all that and keep it short.
I agree with this in principle. But do we have to standardize it?
--
Stefan Richter
14 matches
Mail list logo
