[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130109104414.GF3931@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:44:14 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: introduce descriptor-based GPIO interface
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:35:22AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 January 2013, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > > Please avoid the use of IS_ERR_OR_NULL(), especially on interfaces you
> > > introduce yourself. AFAICT, gpiod_get cannot return NULL, so you
> > > should not check for that.
> >
> > Sure - you sound like IS_ERR_OR_NULL() is generally considered evil,
>
> Correct.
>
> > may I ask why this is the case?
>
> It's very hard to get right: either you are interested in the error code,
> and then you don't have one in some cases, or you don't care but have
> to check for it anyway. When you define a function, just make it clear
> what the expected return values are, either NULL for error or a negative
> ERR_PTR value, but not both.
Indeed, and any code which does this:
if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(ptr))
return PTR_ERR(ptr);
is buggy because on NULL it returns 0, which is generally accepted as being
"success".
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists