From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from asavdk3.altibox.net ([109.247.116.14]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fshSw-00011Z-MS for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 04:43:28 +0000 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 06:43:09 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg Message-ID: <20180823044309.GA2151@ravnborg.org> References: <20180821062603.17393-1-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> <20180821062603.17393-20-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> <20180822070940.2bgr6uraeoeewy7h@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/22] bbu: Remove logical negation in barebox_update_handler_exists() To: Andrey Smirnov Cc: Barebox List Hi Andrey. > > > > > > - return !bbu_find_handler(data->handler_name); > > > + return bbu_find_handler(data->handler_name); > > > > As bbu_find_handler() returns a pointer maybe better '!!' or > > bbu_find_handler() != NULL? > > > > That shouldn't be necessary At least to me the xxx != NULL would express the intent in a more clear way. But then if this becomes a common pattern then I will also learn that. But you got my preference. Sam _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox