The common format to check if a function returned an error pointer is to
use PTR_ERR(). Instead of ERR_PTR() which is used to return said errors.
Also, if there was an error returning -EINVAL instead of -1 is more
appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_debugfs.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_debugfs.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_debugfs.c
index fcbc95d..6252931 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_debugfs.c
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static int __init wilc_debugfs_init(void)
struct wilc_debugfs_info_t *info;
wilc_dir = debugfs_create_dir("wilc_wifi", NULL);
- if (wilc_dir == ERR_PTR(-ENODEV)) {
+ if (PTR_ERR(wilc_dir) == -ENODEV) {
/* it's not error. the debugfs is just not being enabled. */
printk("ERR, kernel has built without debugfs support\n");
return 0;
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static int __init wilc_debugfs_init(void)
if (!wilc_dir) {
printk("ERR, debugfs create dir\n");
- return -1;
+ return -EINVAL;
}
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(debugfs_info); i++) {
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static int __init wilc_debugfs_init(void)
if (!debugfs_files) {
printk("ERR fail to create the debugfs file, %s\n", info->name);
debugfs_remove_recursive(wilc_dir);
- return -1;
+ return -EINVAL;
}
}
return 0;
--
2.5.1
Hi All,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Luis de Bethencourt
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The common format to check if a function returned an error pointer is to
> use PTR_ERR(). Instead of ERR_PTR() which is used to return said errors.
>
> Also, if there was an error returning -EINVAL instead of -1 is more
> appropriate.
These two changes could be argued to be separate changes deserving of
their own patches.
> Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <[email protected]>
However if everyone else is ok with that, this is:
Reviewed-by: Julian Calaby <[email protected]>
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: [email protected]
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
Hi Luis,
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Luis de Bethencourt
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 23/06/16 02:29, Julian Calaby wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Luis de Bethencourt
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The common format to check if a function returned an error pointer is to
>>> use PTR_ERR(). Instead of ERR_PTR() which is used to return said errors.
>>>
>>> Also, if there was an error returning -EINVAL instead of -1 is more
>>> appropriate.
>>
>> These two changes could be argued to be separate changes deserving of
>> their own patches.
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <[email protected]>
>>
>> However if everyone else is ok with that, this is:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Julian Calaby <[email protected]>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
> Hi Julian,
>
> If you don't mind I will resend as two separate patches and include your
> Reviewed-by in both.
Providing there are no changes other than rebasing and splitting, I'm
fine with that.,
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: [email protected]
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
On 23/06/16 02:29, Julian Calaby wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Luis de Bethencourt
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The common format to check if a function returned an error pointer is to
>> use PTR_ERR(). Instead of ERR_PTR() which is used to return said errors.
>>
>> Also, if there was an error returning -EINVAL instead of -1 is more
>> appropriate.
>
> These two changes could be argued to be separate changes deserving of
> their own patches.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <[email protected]>
>
> However if everyone else is ok with that, this is:
>
> Reviewed-by: Julian Calaby <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks,
>
Hi Julian,
If you don't mind I will resend as two separate patches and include your
Reviewed-by in both.
Thanks for the review,
Luis