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

Message-ID: <20130322163650.GN30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:36:50 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@...com>
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 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 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/