> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 02:35:50PM -0500, James Simmons wrote: > > Testing == 0 is not kernel style so remove this > > type of testing from libcfs. > > > > That's not true. Checkpatch.pl won't complain. > It got lumped in with the checkpatch fixes. Also the __uXX problem is not reported by checkpatch so this patch series covers checkpatch + style issues. > Not everyone has thought about it or agrees with me but there are time > when == 0 is idiomatic. For example, if you are talking about the > *number* zero then it should probably be == 0. If it's like "rc == 0" > then "rc" doesn't mean the number it means success/fail so it should be > "if (!rc) ". But it's intuitive to say "if (len == 0) ". > > The other place is strcmp() and friends where it's much more intuitive: > > strcmp(a, b) == 0 means a == b > strcmp(a, b) < 0 means a < b > strcmp(a, b) != 0 means a != b Oh this I didn't know. I will keep this in mind for the future. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
