Re: [PATCH] Silent compiler warning introduced by acea6852f32b8805e166d885ed7e9f0c7cd10d41 ([BLUETOOTH]: Move children of connection device to NULL before connection down.)

From: "S.Çağlar Onur" <caglar@pardus.org.tr>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	hidave.darkstar@gmail.com, marcel@holtmann.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Silent compiler warning introduced by acea6852f32b8805e166d885ed7e9f0c7cd10d41 ([BLUETOOTH]: Move children of connection device to NULL before connection down.)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:05:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200802110005.28003.caglar@pardus.org.tr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802101056530.2896@woody.linux-foundation.org>

Hi;

10 Şub 2008 Paz tarihinde, Linus Torvalds şunları yazmıştı: 
> 
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -	while (dev = device_find_child(&conn->dev, NULL, __match_tty)) {
> > > > +	while ((dev = device_find_child(&conn->dev, NULL, __match_tty)) != NULL) {
> > > >   
> > > Why do you need '!= NULL'?
> > 
> > I thought its more readable than
> > 
> > while ((dev = device_find_child(&conn->dev, NULL, __match_tty))) {
> 
> Yes indeed. I hate the idiotic "double parenthesis without any meaning". 
> I'd much rather see "((..) != NULL)" than "((..))", because the latter is 
> totally meaningless semantically (although gcc gives it semantics).

But you still not merged this one :), is there any problem exists or would you prefer this comes from with a subsystem tree (which means i'm doing wrong thing with sending these trivial patches to you)?

Cheers
-- 
S.Çağlar Onur <caglar@pardus.org.tr>
http://cekirdek.pardus.org.tr/~caglar/

Linux is like living in a teepee. No Windows, no Gates and an Apache in house!