On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 20:55 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 10:51 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 20:44 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 09:45 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 18:11 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks Julia. It seems to work well. > > > I wonder though, why would we want to change if (a == true) with if (a) > > > etc? Julia did not provide the explanation in the commit message but > > > referred to you and Rusty in the semantic patch. > > > > Testing booleans against specific values is poor form. > > booleans should be tested or !tested. > > OK, so this is about taste, I thought there is a more serious reason. But let me be clear - I am all for having this spatch in the kernel tree - it is good for code hygiene. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
