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

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

[Yoann Padioleau]

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.  */

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

[Bryan Wu]

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

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

[Uli Luckas]

On Friday, 27. July 2007, Bryan Wu wrote:
> 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?
>
Or even "if (E)"

Uli

-- 

------- ROAD ...the handyPC Company - - -  ) ) )

Uli Luckas
Software Development

ROAD GmbH
Bennigsenstr. 14 | 12159 Berlin | Germany
fon: +49 (30) 230069 - 64 | fax: +49 (30) 230069 - 69
url: www.road.de

Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 96688 B
Managing directors: Hans-Peter Constien, Hubertus von Streit