Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932150Ab3CTS3C (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:29:02 -0400 Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:34952 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755882Ab3CTS3A (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:29:00 -0400 Message-ID: <5149FFDF.6050501@ti.com> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:28:47 -0500 From: Jon Hunter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russell King - ARM Linux CC: Silviu-Mihai Popescu , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR References: <1363075109-27038-1-git-send-email-silviupopescu1990@gmail.com> <20130312110557.GF30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20130312110557.GF30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.157.144.139] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1788 Lines: 53 On 03/12/2013 06:05 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:58:29AM +0200, Silviu-Mihai Popescu wrote: >> This uses PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR and PTR_ERR in order to increase >> readability. >> >> Signed-off-by: Silviu-Mihai Popescu >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c | 4 ++-- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c | 5 +---- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c | 2 +- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c | 5 +---- >> 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> index 1ec7f05..2a0816e 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c >> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static int __init omap3_l3_init(void) >> >> WARN(IS_ERR(pdev), "could not build omap_device for %s\n", oh_name); >> >> - return IS_ERR(pdev) ? PTR_ERR(pdev) : 0; >> + return PTR_RET(pdev); > > This is incorrect. > > The return value will be tested for < 0. Kernel pointers in general are > all above 3GB, and so are all "< 0". > > I'm afraid none of these changes stuff is an improvement - they all > introduce bugs. Sorry I am now not sure I follow you here. Someone just pointed out to me that PTR_RET() is defined as ... static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr) { if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); else return 0; } So the above change appears to be equivalent. Is there something that is wrong with the current implementation that needs to be fixed? Jon -- 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/