lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Style Question

On Mar 12 2007 13:37, Cong WANG wrote:
>
> The following code is picked from drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c:
>
> static struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu_load(struct kvm *kvm, int vcpu_slot)
> {
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = &kvm->vcpus[vcpu_slot];
>
> mutex_lock(&vcpu->mutex);
> if (unlikely(!vcpu->vmcs)) {
> mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex);
> return 0;
> }
> return kvm_arch_ops->vcpu_load(vcpu);
> }
>
> Obviously, it used 0 rather than NULL when returning a pointer to
> indicate an error. Should we fix such issue?

Indeed. If it was for me, something like that should throw a compile error.

>>[...]
> I think it's more clear to indicate we are using a pointer rather than
> an integer when we use NULL in kernel. But in userspace, using NULL is
> for portbility of the program, although most (*just* most, NOT all) of
> NULL's defination is ((void*)0). ;-)

NULL has the same bit pattern as the number zero. (I'm not saying the bit
pattern is all zeroes. And I am not even sure if NULL ought to have the same
pattern as zero.) So C++ could use (void *)0, if it would let itself :p


>
>

Jan
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-03-12 06:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site