Andru Gheorghiu <[email protected]> writes: > PTR_RET does return. It's perfectly equivalent to using IS_ERR and the > returning PTR_ERR. The implementation is here [1].
Um, I read the implementation, thanks. > The reason for using it is this: if you have a function that does > something why not call it instead of reproducing it's behavior by > explicitly writing what it does. Because clarity matters, and this function makes callers less clear. It's the most breathtakingly bad name since BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(). Why not change PTR_ERR to return 0 if !IS_ERR()? Noone breaks, gcc probably produces the same code, and noone needs to learn your weird new kernel meme. In fact, as gcc will produce the same code for "if (PTR_ERR(p))" as it does for "if (IS_ERR(p))", you get to be one of the very, very few people who have ever *reduced* the complexity of a kernel interface. Cheers, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
