[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5794BFFF.7000408@bfs.de>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 15:17:51 +0200
From: walter harms <wharms@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
CC: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: is_err checking
Am 23.07.2016 16:56, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> Code like the following looks a bit clunky to me:
>
> if (IS_ERR(data->clk) && PTR_ERR(data->clk) != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>
> Is there any reason not to always use eg
>
> data->clk == ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER)
>
> Code of the latter form is a bit more popular. Perhaps one could want
> something like:
>
> IS_ERR_VALUE(data->clk, -EPROBE_DEFER)
>
> but IS_ERR_VALUE is laready used for something else.
>
note: i do not like hiding behind #defines
did you actually see code like IS_ERR_VALUE(data->clk, -EPROBE_DEFER)
in the current kernel ?
because there is no second argument:
#define IS_ERR_VALUE(x) unlikely((x) >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO)
or is this a misunderstanding ?
re,
wh
> julia
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists