On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 07:06:51PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:37:08AM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>
> > OTOH I admit you can compare any value with -EINVAL, after PTR_ERR.
> > But in general you first detect the error condition and then split
> > among error (or print a message according to the exact value.
>
> if (IS_ERR(p) && PTR_ERR(p) == -ENOENT)
> instead of
> if (p == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT))
>
> is ugly, obfuscating what's going on for no good reason and I'm going
> to keep killing those every time I run into one...
And what do you do if you see a
p = somefunc(...);
if (PTR_ERR(p) == -ENOENT)
without first checking for IS_ERR(p)? Another alternative is
if (PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(p) == -ENOENT)
? In your eyes, should they all be converted to
if (p == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT))
?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
