Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 13:47:05 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
Cc:     kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, kbuild-all@01.org,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>,
        Yishai Hadas <yishaih@mellanox.com>,
        Mark Bloch <markb@mellanox.com>,
        Ariel Levkovich <lariel@mellanox.com>,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/uverbs: fix ptr_ret.cocci warnings
Message-ID: <20181203204705.GE12237@ziepe.ca>
References: <201811280723.DnTk8AXL%fengguang.wu@intel.com>
 <20181127232130.GA28456@sof-kbuild01>
 <20181129233721.GA11172@ziepe.ca>
 <51cb9d8e7b107d37447b9e0d218bb12d8cf49ebb.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51cb9d8e7b107d37447b9e0d218bb12d8cf49ebb.camel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 12:23:35PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-11-29 at 16:37 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 07:21:30AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > From: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c:1095:1-3: WARNING: PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO can be used
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO rather than if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR
> > > 
> > > Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 7106a9769715 ("RDMA/uverbs: Make write() handlers return 0 on success")
> > > Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > 
> > applied to for-next, thanks
> > 
> > Jason
> 
> This caused a conflict with your make write() handlers use a consistent
> flow series, which I fixed up during git am run.  Just FYI in case you
> want to check out the conflict spot as a double check (but it was a
> simple fixup).

Looks OK to me thanks

Jason