Loïc, On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 07:22:38PM +0100, Loic Pefferkorn wrote: > > Whose convention is this? I can't find any mention in > > Documention/CodingStyle. checkpatch.pl doesn't complain about them. > > And there are almost three thousand examples in staging which don't > > use this convention. > > > > linux-next$ grep -r "== NULL" drivers/staging/* | wc -l > > 2844 > > Hi Jeremiah, > > Thanks for your feedback. > > I have used checkpatch.pl with the --strict flag: > > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict -f drivers/staging/goldfish/goldfish_nand.c > CHECK: Comparison to NULL could be written "!cps" > #51: FILE: drivers/staging/goldfish/goldfish_nand.c:51: > + if (cps == NULL) > > CHECK: Comparison to NULL could be written "!name" > #333: FILE: drivers/staging/goldfish/goldfish_nand.c:333: > + if (name == NULL) > > CHECK: Comparison to NULL could be written "!r" > #382: FILE: drivers/staging/goldfish/goldfish_nand.c:382: > + if (r == NULL) > > CHECK: Comparison to NULL could be written "!base" > #386: FILE: drivers/staging/goldfish/goldfish_nand.c:386: > + if (base == NULL) > > CHECK: Comparison to NULL could be written "!nand" > #402: FILE: drivers/staging/goldfish/goldfish_nand.c:402: > + if (nand == NULL) > > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 checks, 442 lines checked > > drivers/staging/goldfish/goldfish_nand.c has style problems, please review. > > I have also found another commit having the same purpose: 7f376cd6dc1c9bfd14514c70765e6900a961c4b8 > > -- > Cheers, > Loïc It looks like you're right. I must say I am surprised. I had no idea checkpatch.pl could be even more pedantic than it already is :-) -- - Jeremiah Mahler _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
