Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751441Ab3CUSdE (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:33:04 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]:48359 "EHLO mail-oa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750879Ab3CUSdB (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:33:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5149FFDF.6050501@ti.com> References: <1363075109-27038-1-git-send-email-silviupopescu1990@gmail.com> <20130312110557.GF30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <5149FFDF.6050501@ti.com> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:33:01 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR From: Silviu Popescu To: Jon Hunter Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, tony@atomide.com, khilman@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2099 Lines: 59 On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > > 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? As the patch message says, it's just for readability purposes. I used make coccicheck and it suggested this minor change. -- Silviu Popescu -- 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/