[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: page_launder() bug

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: page_launder() bug
From: Tobias Ringstrom <tori@tellus.mine.nu>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 08:26:58 +0200 (CEST)
cc: Jonathan Morton <chromi@cyberspace.org>, BERECZ Szabolcs <szabi@inf.elte.hu>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
In-Reply-To: <15094.10942.592911.70443@pizda.ninka.net>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org

On Sun, 6 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> It is the most straightforward way to make a '1' or '0'
> integer from the NULL state of a pointer.

But is it really specified in the C "standards" to be exctly zero or one,
and not zero and non-zero?

IMHO, the ?: construct is way more readable and reliable.

/Tobias

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: page_launder() bug
  - From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
- Re: page_launder() bug
  - From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
- Re: page_launder() bug
  - From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>

References:
- Re: page_launder() bug
  - From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>

Prev by Date: Re: page_launder() bug
Next by Date: Re: page_launder() bug
Prev by thread: Re: page_launder() bug
Next by thread: Re: page_launder() bug
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread