staging: nvec: use x instead of x != NULL

Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch

Signed-off-by Tom Mounet <[email protected]>

---
  drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c +1 -1

index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
  {
  	mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex);
 
-	if (msg != NULL)
+	if (msg)
  		*msg = NULL;
 
  	nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0];

Quoted 19 lines · Tom Mounet

Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch

Signed-off-by Tom Mounet <[email protected]>

---
  drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c +1 -0

index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
  {
  	mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex);
  -	if (msg != NULL)
+	if (msg)
  		*msg = NULL;
    	nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0];

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, · line 327

Quoted 6 lines

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c +1 -0

@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
    	dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n");
  -	if (msg != NULL)
+	if (msg)
  		*msg = nvec->last_sync_msg;
  	else
  		nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg);

Hi Tom,

what you change in this patch is fine. But the Description is not so lucky. Reason is that checkpatch is not defining the coding style. Not at all. Sometimes checkpatch is even wrong. The description I like would be:

Use x instead of x != NULL to shorten code.

or

Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability.

If you send in a second version of this patch please use a change history. Description from Dan under:
https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/

Thanks

Bye Philipp

Quoted 40 lines · Philipp Hortmann

Quoted 19 lines · Tom Mounet

Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch

Signed-off-by Tom Mounet <[email protected]>

---
   drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c +1 -0

index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
   {
   	mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex);
   -	if (msg != NULL)
+	if (msg)
   		*msg = NULL;
     	nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0];

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, · line 327

Quoted 6 lines

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c +1 -0

@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
     	dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n");
   -	if (msg != NULL)
+	if (msg)
   		*msg = nvec->last_sync_msg;
   	else
   		nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg);

Hi Tom,

what you change in this patch is fine. But the Description is not so lucky. Reason is that checkpatch is not defining the coding style. Not at all. Sometimes checkpatch is even wrong. The description I like would be:

Use x instead of x != NULL to shorten code.

or

Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability.

Quoted 3 lines

If you send in a second version of this patch please use a change history. Description from Dan under:
https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/

How about adding "Issue identified by checkpatch"? Checkpatch helped find the problem, so it would be nice to acknowledge that.

julia

Quoted 45 lines · Julia Lawall

Quoted 41 lines · Philipp Hortmann

Quoted 19 lines · Tom Mounet

Comply with coding rules defined in checkpatch

Signed-off-by Tom Mounet <[email protected]>

---
   drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c | 4 ++--
   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c +1 -0

index e5ca78e57..814eb121c 100644
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
   {
   	mutex_lock(&nvec->sync_write_mutex);
   -	if (msg != NULL)
+	if (msg)
   		*msg = NULL;
     	nvec->sync_write_pending = (data[1] << 8) + data[0];

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec, · line 327

Quoted 6 lines

drivers/staging/nvec/nvec.c +1 -0

@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int nvec_write_sync(struct nvec_chip *nvec,
     	dev_dbg(nvec->dev, "nvec_sync_write: pong!\n");
   -	if (msg != NULL)
+	if (msg)
   		*msg = nvec->last_sync_msg;
   	else
   		nvec_msg_free(nvec, nvec->last_sync_msg);

Hi Tom,

what you change in this patch is fine. But the Description is not so lucky.
Reason is that checkpatch is not defining the coding style. Not at all. Sometimes checkpatch is even wrong. The description I like would be:

Use x instead of x != NULL to shorten code.

or

Use x instead of x != NULL to improve readability.

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 3 lines

If you send in a second version of this patch please use a change history. Description from Dan under:
https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/

How about adding "Issue identified by checkpatch"? Checkpatch helped find the problem, so it would be nice to acknowledge that.

julia

Hi Julia,

The following lines sound very authoritative. It is only my opinion and can be wrong.

I think checkpatch is valued a lot because every patch send in is checked by checkpatch. checkpatch can be mentioned in the description. But the developer cannot hide at all behind a checkpatch warning/error message. The developer must take full responsibility for the patch. The developer needs to use common sense.

Please have a look at this email from Greg:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/2024062443-udder-spotted-cc0d@gregkh/T/#m280ebb2be94e434234f405e722fc35dc6d1db710

I think that Greg once wrote that he does not care about the tool that found the issue. He much more cares about if the change makes sense. The "Why" in the description is most important for him. And the why cannot be because checkpatch or any other tool told the developer so.

Thanks for your support.

Bye Philipp