Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 May 2007 21:27:45 +0200 (MEST) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] [condingstyle] Add chapter on tests |
| |
On May 25 2007 10:25, Auke Kok wrote: >diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle >index f518395..3635b38 100644 >--- a/Documentation/CodingStyle >+++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle >@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ int fun(int a) > int result = 0; > char *buffer = kmalloc(SIZE); > >- if (buffer == NULL) >+ if (!buffer) > return -ENOMEM;
Please don't do this. With ==NULL/!=NULL, it is clear what <randomvariable> could be (integer or pointer) without needing to look it up. It also reads quite strange: "if not buffer". For bools ('adjectives' / 'is a'), it works, not so much for ptrs. Hence:
>+If you give your variables and pointers good names, there is never a need >+to compare the value stored in that variable to NULL or true/false, so >+omit all that and keep it short.
>+ ptr = s->next; >+ if (!ptr) >+ return;
Not agreed.
>+ >+ v = (read_byte(register)); >+ if (v & mask) >+ return;
well, yes.
>+ if (is_prime(number))
Yes.
And I'd also like to mention one rather special case where I'd rather like to see ==0 than ! for clarity (!strcmp looks like !streq, so one needs to look twice to get it):
if (!strcmp(hay, needle))
At least don't force the '!' doctrine.
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/
| |