linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: tegra: Use PTR_ERR_OR

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20170829150916.GA17659@ulmo>
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:09:16 +0200
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:     Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
Cc:     bhelgaas@...gle.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: tegra: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:44:01PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:55:17PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:09:00PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> > > Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO rather than if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c | 5 +----
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c
> > > index 9c40da5..90cda5b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pci-tegra.c
> > > @@ -1156,10 +1156,7 @@ static int tegra_pcie_resets_get(struct tegra_pcie *pcie)
> > >  		return PTR_ERR(pcie->afi_rst);
> > >  
> > >  	pcie->pcie_xrst = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, "pcie_x");
> > > -	if (IS_ERR(pcie->pcie_xrst))
> > > -		return PTR_ERR(pcie->pcie_xrst);
> > > -
> > > -	return 0;
> > > +	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(pcie->pcie_xrst);
> > >  }
> > 
> > I'm not a big fan of this construct because it's a pain to undo this if
> > ever we need to add code to this function. But since we do have scripts
> > that will flag this, I guess this would pop up every now and again. The
> > driver is unlikely to change in this part, too, so:
> 
> What do you suggest ? Shall I stop sending these patches ?

No, it's fine. I'm just saying that there are cases where this doesn't
make sense. In this case I think it's fine because the driver is fairly
mature and unlikely to change, so there is not a lot of potential for
churn later on. In other cases, use your best judgement.

Ultimately it is up to maintainers whether or not they apply this kind
of patch.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)