svn commit: r197654 - head/sys/dev/if_ndis

Bruce Evans brde at
Thu Oct 1 18:20:31 UTC 2009

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Coleman Kane wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 00:36 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, [utf-8] Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>>> Coleman Kane <cokane at> writes:
>>>> -		if (sc->ndis_80211 && vap)
>>>> +		if ((sc->ndis_80211 != NULL) && (vap != NULL))
>>> sc->ndis_80211 is an int.  NULL is a pointer.
>> Also, the number of style bugs was doubled on (almost?) every changed line
>> by adding 2 sets of unnecessary parentheses.
>> Bruce
> Re-read style(9) more closely.

Do I need to read it at all :-).

> Yes... the extra parentheses are superfluous, and should therefore be
> removed. However, the current rev, which looks like this:
>  if ((sc->ndis_80211 != 0) && (vap != NULL))
> doesn't help the author shoot themselves in the foot as violating the
> "explicitly compare values to zero" rule did in the earlier revision.

Actually I needed to count the style bugs more carefully -- 2 implicit
comparisons with 0 or NULL (unless the first one is really boolean),
but I only counted 1, while I counted 2 for the extra parentheses.

> I'll heed the request of the second-to-last paragraph of style(9) on
> this particular change, not churning the SVN repo further, and make a
> mental note for later.

Thanks.  I forgot about that paragraph being there.  I think churning
repos doesn't matter much now if it ever did, but churning sources makes
their history hard to understand.


More information about the svn-src-head mailing list