linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:39:00 -0500
From:	Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@...com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Silviu-Mihai Popescu <silviupopescu1990@...il.com>,
	<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <tony@...mide.com>, <khilman@...com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: 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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/