Signed-off-by: Thomas Meyer <[email protected]>
---
diff -u -p a/arch/x86/kernel/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpuid.c
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpuid.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpuid.c
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static __cpuinit int cpuid_device_create
dev = device_create(cpuid_class, NULL, MKDEV(CPUID_MAJOR, cpu), NULL,
"cpu%d", cpu);
- return IS_ERR(dev) ? PTR_ERR(dev) : 0;
+ return PTR_RET(dev);
}
static void cpuid_device_destroy(int cpu)
diff -u -p a/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c b/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static int __cpuinit msr_device_create(i
dev = device_create(msr_class, NULL, MKDEV(MSR_MAJOR, cpu), NULL,
"msr%d", cpu);
- return IS_ERR(dev) ? PTR_ERR(dev) : 0;
+ return PTR_RET(dev);
}
static void msr_device_destroy(int cpu)
This is not an acceptable patch... no description of any kind and a subject line which would only make sense if the cocci scripts are checked into the kernel tree.
Thomas Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Signed-off-by: Thomas Meyer <[email protected]>
>---
>
>diff -u -p a/arch/x86/kernel/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpuid.c
>--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpuid.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpuid.c
>@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static __cpuinit int cpuid_device_create
>
> dev = device_create(cpuid_class, NULL, MKDEV(CPUID_MAJOR, cpu), NULL,
> "cpu%d", cpu);
>- return IS_ERR(dev) ? PTR_ERR(dev) : 0;
>+ return PTR_RET(dev);
> }
>
> static void cpuid_device_destroy(int cpu)
>diff -u -p a/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c b/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c
>--- a/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c
>@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static int __cpuinit msr_device_create(i
>
> dev = device_create(msr_class, NULL, MKDEV(MSR_MAJOR, cpu), NULL,
> "msr%d", cpu);
>- return IS_ERR(dev) ? PTR_ERR(dev) : 0;
>+ return PTR_RET(dev);
> }
>
> static void msr_device_destroy(int cpu)
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.