Re: [PATCH 04/68] 0 -> NULL, for arch/blackfin

[Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@analog.com>]

On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 11:44 +0200, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
> When comparing a pointer, it's clearer to compare it to NULL than to 0.
> 
> Here is an excerpt of the semantic patch: 
> 
> @@
> expression *E;
> @@
> 
>   E ==
> - 0
> + NULL
> 
> @@
> expression *E;
> @@
> 
>   E !=
> - 0
> + NULL
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yoann Padioleau <padator@wanadoo.fr>
> Cc: aubrey.li@analog.com
> Cc: bryan.wu@analog.com
> Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
> ---
> 
>  traps.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c b/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c
> index 3909f5b..691c66d 100644
> --- a/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ void dump_bfin_regs(struct pt_regs *fp, 
>  	}
>  
>  	printk(KERN_EMERG "return address: [0x%p]; contents of:", retaddr);
> -	if (retaddr != 0 && retaddr <= (void *)physical_mem_end
> +	if (retaddr != NULL && retaddr <= (void *)physical_mem_end
>  #if L1_CODE_LENGTH != 0
>  	    /* FIXME: Copy the code out of L1 Instruction SRAM through dma
>  	       memcpy.  */

Why not just use " if (!E)" instead of " if (E != NULL)"?
more readable?

Thanks
- Bryan Wu