Re: spidev: Adjust five checks for null pointers

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 04:34:45PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> The script âcheckpatch.plâ pointed information out like the following.

> >> Comparison to NULL could be written !â

> >> Thus fix the affected source code places.

> > This changelog does not describe any purpose in making this change,
> > we could equally well say the exact opposite.  Why should we do this?

> How do you think about to reduce the usage of the preprocessor symbol âNULLâ?

Why would that matter?

> Can it help if the source code is a little bit shorter after the
> proposed adjustment?

Not really - clarity is important but the size of code isn't too
meaningful in and of itself.

Please if you don't really understand what you're sending try to
understand it first, don't throw things out without that.  I know a
number of other maintainers have already raised concerns about the
quality of what's being sent and the effort required to review them in
relation to their value.  There's nothing wrong with doing small
cleanups but if that's all you're sending and there's often problems
then it becomes more trouble than it's worth to review your changes.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature