On 03/12/2013 06:05 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:58:29AM +0200, Silviu-Mihai Popescu wrote:
>> This uses PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR and PTR_ERR in order to increase
>> readability.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Silviu-Mihai Popescu <silviupopescu1...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c | 4 ++--
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c | 5 +----
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c | 2 +-
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c | 5 +----
>> 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
>> index 1ec7f05..2a0816e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
>> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static int __init omap3_l3_init(void)
>>
>> WARN(IS_ERR(pdev), "could not build omap_device for %s\n", oh_name);
>>
>> - return IS_ERR(pdev) ? PTR_ERR(pdev) : 0;
>> + return PTR_RET(pdev);
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> The return value will be tested for < 0. Kernel pointers in general are
> all above 3GB, and so are all "< 0".
>
> I'm afraid none of these changes stuff is an improvement - they all
> introduce bugs.
Sorry I am now not sure I follow you here. Someone just pointed out to
me that PTR_RET() is defined as ...
static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr)
{
if (IS_ERR(ptr))
return PTR_ERR(ptr);
else
return 0;
}
So the above change appears to be equivalent. Is there something that is
wrong with the current implementation that needs to be fixed?
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
