Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>

---
Actually I wonder why in original code Atom processors was

_that_ aligned? Was it made with a special purpose? yes,

it's a mobile platform, but can't see any reason for such

alignment.
 arch/x86/kernel/ds.c |   18 +++++++++---------

 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/ds.c b/arch/x86/kernel/ds.c

index 5b32b6d..24a323c 100644

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/ds.c

+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ds.c

@@ -238,12 +238,12 @@ static inline struct ds_context *ds_alloc_context(struct task_struct *task)

 		context = kzalloc(sizeof(*context), GFP_KERNEL);
 		if (!context)

-			return 0;

+			return NULL;
 		context->ds = kzalloc(ds_cfg.sizeof_ds, GFP_KERNEL);

 		if (!context->ds) {

 			kfree(context);

-			return 0;

+			return NULL;

 		}
 		*p_context = context;

@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ static inline void ds_put_context(struct ds_context *context)

 	if (--context->count)

 		goto out;
-	*(context->this) = 0;

+	*(context->this) = NULL;
 	if (context->task)

 		clear_tsk_thread_flag(context->task, TIF_DS_AREA_MSR);

@@ -341,16 +341,16 @@ static inline void *ds_allocate_buffer(size_t size, unsigned int *pages)

 	rlim = current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_AS].rlim_cur >> PAGE_SHIFT;

 	vm   = current->mm->total_vm  + pgsz;

 	if (rlim < vm)

-		return 0;

+		return NULL;
 	rlim = current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_MEMLOCK].rlim_cur >> PAGE_SHIFT;

 	vm   = current->mm->locked_vm  + pgsz;

 	if (rlim < vm)

-		return 0;

+		return NULL;
 	buffer = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);

 	if (!buffer)

-		return 0;

+		return NULL;
 	current->mm->total_vm  += pgsz;

 	current->mm->locked_vm += pgsz;

@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ static int ds_request(struct task_struct *task, void *base, size_t size,

 	if (context->owner[qual] == current)

 		goto out_unlock;

 	error = -EPERM;

-	if (context->owner[qual] != 0)

+	if (context->owner[qual] != ...
[ message continues ]

Why?  The constant 0 is C's official symbol for a null pointer.

--

Yes, but by using NULL explicilty allows you to separate _pointers_ from

numbers on review process. Or maybe you wanna drop NULL at all? I dont

think you will like that ;)

--

It's still bad style.
	-hpa

--

I disagree, but I don't want to debate the point.

--

to me it looks like a typo, not a sign of any real bug/thinko. The

processor IDs there are a flat list.
	Ingo

--

Nevermind, I was looking for a *memory* alignment... :-/
	-hpa

--

Oh, my fault, i had to be more concrete :(

--

I'm sorry, I don't see how this comment has anything to do with this patch?
	-hpa

--