[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm linux-foundation org>
- To: "Takashi Sato" <t-sato yk jp nec com>
- Cc: axboe kernel dk, mtk manpages googlemail com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, xfs oss sgi com, dm-devel redhat com, viro ZenIV linux org uk, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, linux-ext4 vger kernel org
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:57:27 -0700
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:33:58 +0900
"Takashi Sato" <t-sato yk jp nec com> wrote:
> >> case XFS_FSOP_GOING_FLAGS_DEFAULT: {
> >> - struct super_block *sb = freeze_bdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev);
> >> + struct super_block *sb = freeze_bdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev, 0);
> >
> > Using NULL here is clearer and will, I expect, avoid a sparse warning.
>
> I checked it but I couldn't find a sparse warning in xfs_fsops.c.
> Can you tell me how to use NULL?
struct super_block *sb = freeze_bdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev, NULL);
:)
It's much better to use NULL here rather than literal zero because the
reader of this code can then say "ah-hah, we're passing in a pointer".
Whereas plain old "0" could be a pointer or a scalar.
We should always use NULL to represent a null pointer in the kernel.
The one acceptable exception is when testing for nullness:
if (ptr1)
if (!ptr2)
Often people will use
if (ptr1 != NULL)
if (ptr2 == NULL)
in this case as well. (I prefer the shorter version personally, but
either is OK).
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]