On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:32:06 +0100
Richard MUSIL <richard.musil@st.com> wrote:

quoted text
> >> +	if (chip->vendor.release)
> >> +		chip->vendor.release(dev);
> >> +
> >> +	/* it *should* be: chip->release != NULL */
> > 
> > And that one's actually wrong in the context of kernel coding practices. 
> > But whatever.
> 
> Well I am not sure, what is exactly against coding practices (this is
> my first patch, so bear with me). Was it the comment? Or the "likely".

The code was

	/* it *should* be: chip->release != NULL */
	if (chip->release)

and the I took the comment to mean that it should be

	if (chip->release != NULL)

I was just pointing out that the test-pointer-as-truth-value trick is
smiled upon in kernel coding.

quoted text
> But, anyway, I guess I was a bit paranoic. chip->release is set to 
> original device::release and this should be set to platform_device_release
> at least (and if someone messed with it, it should not be NULL anyway).
> So I removed complete condition.

From the above it appears that the code comment misled me.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/