On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:28:47PM -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 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?
No - I misread it as PTR_ERR not PTR_RET. Your patch is fine.
--
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/
