On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 03:20:58PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Johannes Berg wrote:
> >- if (!local->hw->passive_scan) {
> >+ if (local->hw->passive_scan == NULL) {
>
> Alright, this is icky. I'll make another pass and change it all to if
> (x) or if (!x) instead of comparing to NULL. Don't hold your breath
> though, earliest next weekend.
Well.. I'm perfectly fine with comparing function pointers to NULL in
this kind of case.. In many cases, I find fp == NULL to be clearer than
!fp, but for the fp != NULL case I would rather not see != NULL.. Not
very consistent, but can't really help with that on this kind of coding
style opinions. Anyway, replacing 0 with NULL is a good change.
--
Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
