On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > So, it seems there's some concensus building here, and it seems that > I've become the chosen victi^wvolunteer for this. So, here's a patch. > It's missing a Guns-supplied-by: tag though.
Guns-supplied-by: NRA (obviously) > From: Russell King <rmk+ker...@arm.linux.org.uk> > Subject: Mark IS_ERR_OR_NULL() deprecated > > IS_ERR_OR_NULL() attracts a lot of abuse: people use it without much > thought about it's effects. Common errors include: > 1. checking the returned pointer for functions defined as only > returning errno-pointer values, rather than using IS_ERR(). > This leads to: ptr = foo(); if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ptr)) return > PTR_ERR(ptr); > 2. using it to check functions which only ever return NULL on error, > thereby leading to another zero-error value return. > In the case of debugfs functions, these return errno-pointer values when > debugfs is configured out, which means code which blindly checks using > IS_ERR_OR_NULL() ends up returning errors, which is rather perverse for > something that's not implemented. > > Therefore, let's schedule it for removal in a few releases. > > Nicolas Pitre comments: > > I do agree with Russell here. Despite the original intentions behind > > IS_ERR_OR_NULL() which were certainly legitimate, the end result in > > practice is less reliable code with increased maintenance costs. > > Unlike other convenience macros in the kernel, this one is giving a > > false sense of correctness with too many people falling in the trap > > of using it just because it is available. > > > > I strongly think this macro should simply be removed from the source > > tree entirely and the code reverted to explicit tests against NULL > > when appropriate. > > Suggested-by: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> > Tape-measuring-service-offered-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > Victim-for-firing-sqad: Russell King <rmk+ker...@arm.linux.org.uk> > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+ker...@arm.linux.org.uk> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <n...@linaro.org> Anyone with good coccinelle skills around to deal with the users? > --- > Ok, so I'm in the firing line for suggesting this, but it appears > several people wish this to happen. > > I'm not intending to push this patch forwards _just_ yet: we need to > sort out the existing users _first_ to prevent the kernel turning into > one hell of a mess of warnings. > > include/linux/err.h | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/err.h b/include/linux/err.h > index f2edce2..d5a85df 100644 > --- a/include/linux/err.h > +++ b/include/linux/err.h > @@ -34,7 +34,22 @@ static inline long __must_check IS_ERR(const void *ptr) > return IS_ERR_VALUE((unsigned long)ptr); > } > > -static inline long __must_check IS_ERR_OR_NULL(const void *ptr) > +/* > + * IS_ERR_OR_NULL() attracts a lot of abuse: people use it without much > + * thought about it's effects. Common errors include: > + * 1. checking the returned pointer for functions defined as only returning > + * errno-pointer values, rather than using IS_ERR(). > + * This leads to: ptr = foo(); if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ptr)) return > PTR_ERR(ptr); > + * 2. using it to check functions which only ever return NULL on error, > + * thereby leading to another zero-error value return. > + * In the case of debugfs functions, these return errno-pointer values when > + * debugfs is configured out, which means code which blindly checks using > + * IS_ERR_OR_NULL() ends up returning errors, which is rather perverse for > + * something that's not implemented. > + * > + * Therefore, let's schedule it for removal in a few releases. > + */ > +static inline long __must_check __deprecated IS_ERR_OR_NULL(const void *ptr) > { > return !ptr || IS_ERR_VALUE((unsigned long)ptr); > } > _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss