Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760202AbcJaG1T (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 02:27:19 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:33897 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760041AbcJaG1R (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 02:27:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxl: Fix error handling To: Christophe JAILLET , imunsie@au1.ibm.com, fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20161030213451.24624-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Andrew Donnellan Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:27:10 +1100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161030213451.24624-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16103106-0008-0000-0000-000000D71EE3 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16103106-0009-0000-0000-00000860AAA8 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-10-31_02:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1610310113 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 969 Lines: 28 On 31/10/16 08:34, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > 'cxl_dev_context_init()' returns an error pointer in case of error, not > NULL. So test it with IS_ERR. > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET Reviewed-by: Andrew Donnellan > --- > un-compiled because I don't have the required cross build environment. Builds fine here. In future, you might want to bundle all 3 of your patches either into 1 patch (while they are changes which can be done separately, it's all fixes to one type of problem in relation to one function, so personally I'm okay with that) or send it as a series, so that it's clear to everyone that they're all related fixes. Additionally, having the same patch subject line for two patches sent in short succession is a bit confusing - in future, try and avoid that. Andrew -- Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com IBM Australia Limited