Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
On 03/22/2013 11:36 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for confirming. I had made the same mistake recently too!
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/
Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
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/
Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
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/
Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
On 03/22/2013 11:36 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
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.
Thanks for confirming. I had made the same mistake recently too!
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/
Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> 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
>>> ---
>>> 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?
As the patch message says, it's just for readability purposes.
I used make coccicheck and it suggested this minor change.
--
Silviu Popescu
--
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/
Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com wrote:
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?
As the patch message says, it's just for readability purposes.
I used make coccicheck and it suggested this minor change.
--
Silviu Popescu
--
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/
Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
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
>> ---
>> 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/
Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
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/
Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
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 > --- > 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. -- 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/
[PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
This uses PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR and PTR_ERR in order to increase readability. Signed-off-by: Silviu-Mihai Popescu --- 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); } omap_postcore_initcall(omap3_l3_init); @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ static int __init omap4_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); } omap_postcore_initcall(omap4_l3_init); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c index 190ae49..2ca33cc 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c @@ -83,10 +83,7 @@ static int __init omap_init_vrfb(void) pdev = platform_device_register_resndata(NULL, "omapvrfb", -1, res, num_res, NULL, 0); - if (IS_ERR(pdev)) - return PTR_ERR(pdev); - else - return 0; + return PTR_RET(pdev); } omap_arch_initcall(omap_init_vrfb); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c index 410e1ba..c665721 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c @@ -1448,7 +1448,7 @@ static int __init omap_gpmc_init(void) pdev = omap_device_build(DEVICE_NAME, -1, oh, NULL, 0); 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); } omap_postcore_initcall(omap_gpmc_init); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c index 9debf82..13ff2f5 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c @@ -52,10 +52,7 @@ static int __init omap2_init_pmu(unsigned oh_num, char *oh_names[]) WARN(IS_ERR(omap_pmu_dev), "Can't build omap_device for %s.\n", dev_name); - if (IS_ERR(omap_pmu_dev)) - return PTR_ERR(omap_pmu_dev); - - return 0; + return PTR_RET(omap_pmu_dev); } static int __init omap_init_pmu(void) -- 1.7.9.5 -- 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/
[PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
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); } omap_postcore_initcall(omap3_l3_init); @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ static int __init omap4_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); } omap_postcore_initcall(omap4_l3_init); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c index 190ae49..2ca33cc 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/fb.c @@ -83,10 +83,7 @@ static int __init omap_init_vrfb(void) pdev = platform_device_register_resndata(NULL, omapvrfb, -1, res, num_res, NULL, 0); - if (IS_ERR(pdev)) - return PTR_ERR(pdev); - else - return 0; + return PTR_RET(pdev); } omap_arch_initcall(omap_init_vrfb); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c index 410e1ba..c665721 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c @@ -1448,7 +1448,7 @@ static int __init omap_gpmc_init(void) pdev = omap_device_build(DEVICE_NAME, -1, oh, NULL, 0); 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); } omap_postcore_initcall(omap_gpmc_init); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c index 9debf82..13ff2f5 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pmu.c @@ -52,10 +52,7 @@ static int __init omap2_init_pmu(unsigned oh_num, char *oh_names[]) WARN(IS_ERR(omap_pmu_dev), Can't build omap_device for %s.\n, dev_name); - if (IS_ERR(omap_pmu_dev)) - return PTR_ERR(omap_pmu_dev); - - return 0; + return PTR_RET(omap_pmu_dev); } static int __init omap_init_pmu(void) -- 1.7.9.5 -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
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. -- 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/
