Re: [PATCH 3/3] GenWQE: Adjust 12 checks for null pointers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Markus,

On 2018-01-08 10:43, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:21:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The script “checkpatch.pl” pointed information out like the following.

Comparison to NULL could be written …

Thus fix the affected source code places.

Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/misc/genwqe/card_utils.c | 29 +++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/genwqe/card_utils.c b/drivers/misc/genwqe/card_utils.c
index 0b466664c908..84408dc69020 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/genwqe/card_utils.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/genwqe/card_utils.c
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ int __genwqe_writeq(struct genwqe_dev *cd, u64
byte_offs, u64 val)
 	if (cd->err_inject & GENWQE_INJECT_HARDWARE_FAILURE)
 		return -EIO;

-	if (cd->mmio == NULL)
+	if (!cd->mmio)
 		return -EIO;

 	if (pci_channel_offline(pci_dev))
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ u64 __genwqe_readq(struct genwqe_dev *cd, u64 byte_offs)
 	    (byte_offs == IO_SLC_CFGREG_GFIR))
 		return 0x00000000ffff0000ull;

-	if (cd->mmio == NULL)
+	if (!cd->mmio)
 		return 0xffffffffffffffffull;

return be64_to_cpu((__force __be64)__raw_readq(cd->mmio + byte_offs));
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ int __genwqe_writel(struct genwqe_dev *cd, u64
byte_offs, u32 val)
 	if (cd->err_inject & GENWQE_INJECT_HARDWARE_FAILURE)
 		return -EIO;

-	if (cd->mmio == NULL)
+	if (!cd->mmio)
 		return -EIO;

 	if (pci_channel_offline(pci_dev))
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ u32 __genwqe_readl(struct genwqe_dev *cd, u64 byte_offs)
 	if (cd->err_inject & GENWQE_INJECT_HARDWARE_FAILURE)
 		return 0xffffffff;

-	if (cd->mmio == NULL)
+	if (!cd->mmio)
 		return 0xffffffff;

return be32_to_cpu((__force __be32)__raw_readl(cd->mmio + byte_offs));
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ void *__genwqe_alloc_consistent(struct genwqe_dev
*cd, size_t size,
 void __genwqe_free_consistent(struct genwqe_dev *cd, size_t size,
 			     void *vaddr, dma_addr_t dma_handle)
 {
-	if (vaddr == NULL)
+	if (!vaddr)
 		return;

 	dma_free_coherent(&cd->pci_dev->dev, size, vaddr, dma_handle);
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int genwqe_alloc_sync_sgl(struct genwqe_dev *cd,
struct genwqe_sgl *sgl,

 	sgl->sgl = __genwqe_alloc_consistent(cd, sgl->sgl_size,
 					     &sgl->sgl_dma_addr);
-	if (sgl->sgl == NULL) {
+	if (!sgl->sgl) {
 		dev_err(&pci_dev->dev,
 			"[%s] err: no memory available!\n", __func__);
 		return -ENOMEM;
@@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ int genwqe_alloc_sync_sgl(struct genwqe_dev *cd,
struct genwqe_sgl *sgl,
 	if ((sgl->fpage_size != 0) && (sgl->fpage_size != PAGE_SIZE)) {
 		sgl->fpage = __genwqe_alloc_consistent(cd, PAGE_SIZE,
 						       &sgl->fpage_dma_addr);
-		if (sgl->fpage == NULL)
+		if (!sgl->fpage)
 			goto err_out;

 		/* Sync with user memory */
@@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ int genwqe_alloc_sync_sgl(struct genwqe_dev *cd,
struct genwqe_sgl *sgl,
 	if (sgl->lpage_size != 0) {
 		sgl->lpage = __genwqe_alloc_consistent(cd, PAGE_SIZE,
 						       &sgl->lpage_dma_addr);
-		if (sgl->lpage == NULL)
+		if (!sgl->lpage)
 			goto err_out1;

 		/* Sync with user memory */
@@ -406,15 +406,12 @@ int genwqe_setup_sgl(struct genwqe_dev *cd,
struct genwqe_sgl *sgl,
 			/* DMA mapping for requested page, offs, size */
 			size_to_map = min(size, PAGE_SIZE - map_offs);

-			if ((p == 0) && (sgl->fpage != NULL)) {
+			if (p == 0 && sgl->fpage)
 				daddr = sgl->fpage_dma_addr + map_offs;
-
-			} else if ((p == sgl->nr_pages - 1) &&
-				   (sgl->lpage != NULL)) {
+			else if ((p == sgl->nr_pages - 1) && sgl->lpage)
 				daddr = sgl->lpage_dma_addr;
-			} else {
+			else
 				daddr = dma_list[p] + map_offs;
-			}

 			size -= size_to_map;
 			map_offs = 0;
@@ -538,7 +535,7 @@ static int genwqe_free_user_pages(struct page **page_list,
 	unsigned int i;

 	for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
-		if (page_list[i] != NULL) {
+		if (page_list[i]) {
 			if (dirty)
 				set_page_dirty_lock(page_list[i]);
 			put_page(page_list[i]);
@@ -577,7 +574,7 @@ int genwqe_user_vmap(struct genwqe_dev *cd, struct
dma_mapping *m, void *uaddr,
 	unsigned long data, offs;
 	struct pci_dev *pci_dev = cd->pci_dev;

-	if ((uaddr == NULL) || (size == 0)) {
+	if (!uaddr || size == 0) {
 		m->size = 0;	/* mark unused and not added */
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

I personally like the explicit compare (ptr != NULL) more than the !ptr notation. When was the checkpatch.pl script modified to suggest the latter notation?
Is there any advantage other than the shorter notation?

Regards

Frank

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Announce]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux