linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtc:rtc-digicolor: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20180815082055.GV943@piout.net>
Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 10:20:55 +0200
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
Cc:     a.zummo@...ertech.it, baruch@...s.co.il, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtc:rtc-digicolor: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO to replace
 the open code

On 15/08/2018 15:16:56+0800, zhong jiang wrote:
> On 2018/8/15 0:15, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 13/08/2018 19:31:24+0800, zhong jiang wrote:
> >> PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO has implemented the if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR, So
> >> just replace them rather than duplicating its implement.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c | 4 +---
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c
> >> index b253bf1..fd6850c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-digicolor.c
> >> @@ -202,10 +202,8 @@ static int __init dc_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>  	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rtc);
> >>  	rtc->rtc_dev = devm_rtc_device_register(&pdev->dev, pdev->name,
> >>  						&dc_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
> >> -	if (IS_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev))
> >> -		return PTR_ERR(rtc->rtc_dev);
> >>  
> >> -	return 0;
> >> +	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(rtc->rtc_dev);
> > As many other maintainers, I don't find that kind of change useful and
> > I'm not taking them unless there are other improvements in the driver.
> >
> >
> Hi,  Alexandre
> 
> The issue is detected with the help of  Coccinelle.  It simplify the code with specific
> function rather than duplicating its implementation.
> 
> The patch clean up the code.   of course,  it is not a bug.  if you do not care about it.
> I am ok with that.
> 

But this does not simplify or make the code clearer and as soon as you
need to add code between the devm_rtc_device_register call and the end
of the function, the patch will need to be undone.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com