From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] ipv6: coding style - comparisons with NULL Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:36:17 -0700 Message-ID: <1427650577.2715.32.camel@perches.com> References: <1427634005-4313-1-git-send-email-ipm@chirality.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ian Morris Return-path: Received: from smtprelay0030.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.30]:59634 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752213AbbC2RgU (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2015 13:36:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1427634005-4313-1-git-send-email-ipm@chirality.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 14:00 +0100, Ian Morris wrote: > The IPV6 code uses multiple different styles when comparing with NULL > (I.e. x == NULL and !x as well as x != NULL and x). Generally the > latter form is preferred according to checkpatch and so this changes > aligns the code to this style. Hello Ian. While I prefer this style, it can be a "maintainer's choice" preference and this might be a bit contentious to some. It might be nice to show the relative counts of each form before this change to show the relative counts use of each form to help establish consensus for the value for this patch. (Or David could just apply it instead:) Using coccinelle to check for pointer comparisons with and without NULL for net/ipv6/*.[ch]: with NULL: 260 without NULL: 779 So there was a 3:1 preference for the bare form. (and for net/ipv4/*.[ch] it's closer to 4:1) with NULL: 276 without NULL: 914 (trivial cocci script below) @@ type A; A *b; @@ * b == NULL @@ type A; A *b; @@ * b != NULL