Re: [PATCH v3] staging: sm750fb: Replace comparisons with NULL and 0

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 07:40:31PM +0530, Chandra Pratap wrote:
> Replace '(opt != NULL)' with '(opt)' and '(*opt != 0)'
> with '(*opt != '\0')' to adhere to the coding standards.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chandra Pratap <chandrapratap3519@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
> index 04c1b32a22c5..c4b944f82fb9 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c
> @@ -926,7 +926,7 @@ static void sm750fb_setup(struct sm750_dev *sm750_dev, char *src)
>  		goto NO_PARAM;
>  	}
>  
> -	while ((opt = strsep(&src, ":")) != NULL && *opt != 0) {
> +	while ((opt = strsep(&src, ":")) && *opt != '\0') {
>  		dev_info(&sm750_dev->pdev->dev, "opt=%s\n", opt);
>  		dev_info(&sm750_dev->pdev->dev, "src=%s\n", src);
>  
> @@ -1147,7 +1147,7 @@ static int __init lynxfb_setup(char *options)
>  	 * strsep() updates @options to pointer after the first found token
>  	 * it also returns the pointer ahead the token.
>  	 */
> -	while ((opt = strsep(&options, ":")) != NULL) {
> +	while ((opt = strsep(&options, ":"))) {
>  		/* options that mean for any lynx chips are configured here */
>  		if (!strncmp(opt, "noaccel", strlen("noaccel"))) {
>  			g_noaccel = 1;
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
  did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
  needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot