[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=WgbY0wDtGCm71E8VXi2g5+VcGogHEy8jdekTRg8xtp6-3rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 07:14:51 +0200
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 4/7] hwspinlock/core: add common OF helpers
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com> wrote:
> On 02/07/2014 04:49 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> It seems to be standard practice to pass the error value back to the
>> consumer, so you should
>> return ERR_PTR(ret); here instead of the NULL...
>
>
> I have modelled the return values in this function based on the return
> values in the existing hwspin_lock_request interfaces. I would need to
> change those functions as well.
>
> Ohad,
> Do you have any objections to the return code convention change?
Unless strictly needed, I prefer we don't switch to the ERR_PTR code
convention, as it reduces code readability and increases chances of
user bugs.
In our case, switching to ERR_PTR and friends seems only to optimize a
few error paths, and I'm not sure it's a big win over simplicity.
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
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