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:   Tue, 7 Jan 2020 10:40:33 +0100
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
Cc:     Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr, Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr, nicolas.palix@imag.fr,
        michal.lkml@markovi.net, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinnelle: Remove ptr_ret script
Message-ID: <20200107094033.GA1964183@ulmo>
References: <20200107073629.325249-1-maxime@cerno.tech>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200107073629.325249-1-maxime@cerno.tech>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.13.1 (2019-12-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 08:36:29AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> The ptr_ret script script addresses a number of situations where we end up
> testing an error pointer, and if it's an error returning it, or return 0
> otherwise to transform it into a PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO call.
>=20
> So it will convert a block like this:
>=20
> if (IS_ERR(err))
>     return PTR_ERR(err);
>=20
> return 0;
>=20
> into
>=20
> return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(err);
>=20
> While this is technically correct, it has a number of drawbacks. First, it
> merges the error and success path, which will make it harder for a review=
er
> or reader to grasp.
>=20
> It's also more difficult to extend if we were to add some code between the
> error check and the function return, making the author essentially revert
> that patch before adding new lines, while it would have been a trivial
> addition otherwise for the rewiever.
>=20
> Therefore, since that script is only about cosmetic in the first place,
> let's remove it since it's not worth it.
>=20
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
> Cc: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
> ---
>  scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci | 97 ----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 97 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci

Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

--pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=pKJF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/--