[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1306082305220.1968@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 23:07:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>, mst@...hat.com,
grant.likely@...aro.org, rob.herring@...xeda.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [RFC] PTR_ERR: return 0 if ptr isn't an error value.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Rusty,
>
> [added akpm to Cc: who took the patch back then and Julia for the
> coccinelle part below]
>
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 11:59:15AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >
> > Back in 2011, Uwe Kleine-König added the nonsensically-named
> > PTR_RET(), providing a means to avoid if() statements in code (commit
> > fa9ee9c4b9).
> >
> > Instead, just make PTR_ERR() return 0 if the pointer isn't an error
> > value. This is harmless, since PTR_ERR() should have never been
> > passed a non-error value. And GCC is usually smart enough to remove
> > the extra test if IS_ERR() has already been called.
> I wonder in which situations gcc fails to be smart enough. Did you check
> this?
>
> > My vmlinux text increased by 300 bytes:
> >
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 6029452 491628 2576384 9097464 8ad0f8 vmlinux
> > 6029721 491628 2576384 9097733 8ad205 vmlinux.PTR_ERR
> >
> > Cc: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> > Cc: Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/err.h b/include/linux/err.h
> > index f2edce2..621d859 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/err.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/err.h
> > @@ -24,14 +24,16 @@ static inline void * __must_check ERR_PTR(long error)
> > return (void *) error;
> > }
> >
> > -static inline long __must_check PTR_ERR(const void *ptr)
> > +static inline long __must_check IS_ERR(const void *ptr)
> > {
> > - return (long) ptr;
> > + return IS_ERR_VALUE((unsigned long)ptr);
> > }
> >
> > -static inline long __must_check IS_ERR(const void *ptr)
> > +static inline long __must_check PTR_ERR(const void *ptr)
> > {
> > - return IS_ERR_VALUE((unsigned long)ptr);
> > + if (IS_ERR(ptr))
> > + return (long) ptr;
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static inline long __must_check IS_ERR_OR_NULL(const void *ptr)
> > @@ -52,14 +54,7 @@ static inline void * __must_check ERR_CAST(const void *ptr)
> > return (void *) ptr;
> > }
> >
> > -static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr)
> > -{
> > - if (IS_ERR(ptr))
> > - return PTR_ERR(ptr);
> > - else
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > +#define PTR_RET PTR_ERR
> I'd add a comment here that PTR_RET shouldn't be used anymore.
>
> > #endif
> >
> > #endif /* _LINUX_ERR_H */
> >
>
> Is it worth to apply the same change to tools/virtio/linux/err.h to
> minimize the chance for later surprises?
> Also scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci starts giving false warnings.
>
> Other than that I think the change is fine.
For a random example, here is a function that currently uses PTR_RET:
static int __net_init iptable_raw_net_init(struct net *net)
{
struct ipt_replace *repl;
repl = ipt_alloc_initial_table(&packet_raw);
if (repl == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
net->ipv4.iptable_raw =
ipt_register_table(net, &packet_raw, repl);
kfree(repl);
return PTR_RET(net->ipv4.iptable_raw);
}
If it becomes return PTR_ERR(...); at the end, won't it look like the
function always fails?
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists