Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:52:37 -0300 | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/11] ftrace/trivial: Clean up recordmcount.c to use Linux style comparisons | From | Thiago Farina <> |
| |
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 12:52 -0300, Thiago Farina wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:09 PM, John Reiser <jreiser@bitwagon.com> wrote: >> > I consider "0==strcmp(" to be an idiom. Too often "strcmp(...) == 0" >> > overflows my mental stack because of the typographic width of the operands >> > in the source code. If you still object in this case then please consider >> > using something like: >> > #define strequ(a,b) (strcmp((a), (b)) == 0) >> > or >> > static int strequ(char const *a, char const *b) >> > { >> > return strcmp(a, b) == 0; >> > } >> > which names the idiom. >> > >> >> Maybe str_eq? Or even just streq? And also just !strcmp(a,b). > > streq() is something I woudn't mind. > > I've too often confused !strcmp(a,b) as "!streq()" which is not the > case. Which is why I always use strcmp(a,b) == 0, which to me I see the > '==' as eq. I also consider strcmp(a,b) != 0 as not equal. Again, the > mind that sees "==" and "!=" can just translate that to human language. > Where !strcmp() is just gibberish ;)
I've sent a patch to linux-kernel adding streq macro as suggested and copied you Steven.
Best regards, -- 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/
| |