On Sunday, September 4, 2016 8:20:15 PM CEST Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>
> >> + dwmac->m25_div_clk = devm_clk_register(dev, &dwmac->m25_div.hw);
> >> + if (WARN_ON(PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(dwmac->m25_div_clk)))
> >> + return PTR_ERR(dwmac->m25_div_clk);
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >
> > This could be return WARN_ON(PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(...))
> This would work as well but I prefer the way it is right now (as one
> could easily extend the code without having to touch any existing code
> apart from the last return).
> However, as it's always the case with personal preference: if
> coding-style requires me to change it then I'll do so, just let me
> know.
>
> I have addressed all other issues you found (thanks for that!) in v4
> (which I am about to send in the next few minutes).
Both of these are fairly unusual. The most common way to write it is
if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(dwmac->m25_div_clk)))
return PTR_ERR(dwmac->m25_div_clk);
return 0;
However, I now tend to prefer
ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(dwmac->m25_div_clk);
WARN_ON(ret);
return ret;
which is less likely to cause false-positive warnings when building
with -Wmaybe-uninitialized than any of the other ones.
Please don't use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() as a condition, that is what
IS_ERR() is meant for.
Arnd
