On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 08:13:01PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 08:00:00PM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > +static int samsung_usbphy_get_refclk_freq(struct samsung_usbphy *sphy) > > > +{ > > > + struct clk *ref_clk; > > > + int refclk_freq = 0; > > > + > > > + ref_clk = clk_get(sphy->dev, "xusbxti"); > > > + if (IS_ERR(ref_clk)) { > > > > IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ref_clk)? > > For the N'th time, NO. IS_ERR is correct here. > > > > + dev_err(sphy->dev, "Failed to get reference clock\n"); > > > + return PTR_ERR(ref_clk); > > Look, it's the ABI. Not only that but it's also TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WRONG > to use IS_ERR_OR_NULL(foo) and then follow it with return PTR_ERR(foo). > You end up returning ZERO. > > Stop telling people to use IS_ERR_OR_NULL without properly thinking about > it first. Virtually every single one of these done this way is a BUG. > > Are we clear on this?
Wouldn't be much easier to define PTR_ERR() to return -Esomething when its argument is NULL? This would end the whole issue of "should I use IS_ERR*/PTR_ERR or look into the pointer myself?" story. One could simply always use IS_ERR*/PTR_ERR and have the right thing done in whatever case. Regards, Domenico -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html