Re: [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fid: Use !x to check for kzalloc failure

From: Julia Lawall
Date: Tue Jun 23 2015 - 05:35:57 EST

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 08:25:05AM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote:
> > I've found in the past that developers can introduce bugs when they treat
> > return values as boolean when they really aren't.
> I can imagine a bug like that where a function can return 0-2 and people
> do:
> if (ret)
> instead of:
> if (ret == 1)
> but that bug is something else besides pointers so it doesn't apply
> here.
> What someone should do is try to measure it scientifically where we
> flash some code on the screen and you have to press J for NULL and K for
> non-NULL and we time it to the hundredth of a second. I have a feeling
> that (NULL != foo) is the worst way to write it because of the double
> negative Yoda code.
> Yoda code is the most useless thing ever. I have actually measured this
> and we introduce about 2 = vs == bugs per year. It's probably less now
> that we have so many static checks against it. But people decided that
> Yoda code was a good idea based on their gut instead of using statistics
> and measurements and science.

In 2007, Al Viro said (

Idiomatic form for "has allocation succeeded?" is neither "if (p != 0)"
nor "if (p != NULL)". It's simply "if (p)".

>From the point of view of looking at kernel code, x == NULL for the result
of kmalloc etc looks verbose and distracting.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at