Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > This doesn't look like our normal coding standards, and should
> > probably be changed:
> > + if (0 != stat(BACKUP_LABEL_FILE, &stat_buf))
> >
> > (there's a number of similar places)
>
> I see. Lacking guidelines, I now copied how stat(2) is used in
> other parts of the code.
Really? I thought we didn't do that :), and I recall having my own
patches bounced for the same reason.
Just to be sure, we are talking about the
if (0 == foo)
vs
if (foo == 0)
thing, right? If not, then I wasn't clear enough in my note :-(
//Magnus