[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190415084844.GA26101@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:48:44 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ronald Tschalär <ronald@...ovation.ch>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] debugfs: make return value of all debugfs helpers
consistent
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:25:06AM -0700, Ronald Tschalär wrote:
> Since commit ff9fb72bc077 ("debugfs: return error values, not NULL")
> almost all the debugfs helpers have stopped returning NULL. The lone
> holdeout was debugfs_create_u32_array(). So fix that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ronald Tschalär <ronald@...ovation.ch>
> ---
> fs/debugfs/file.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/debugfs/file.c b/fs/debugfs/file.c
> index ddd708b09fa1..bb706d073782 100644
> --- a/fs/debugfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/debugfs/file.c
> @@ -999,8 +999,8 @@ static const struct file_operations u32_array_fops = {
> * Once array is created its size can not be changed.
> *
> * The function returns a pointer to dentry on success. If an error occurs,
> - * %ERR_PTR(-ERROR) or NULL will be returned. If debugfs is not enabled in
> - * the kernel, the value %ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) will be returned.
> + * %ERR_PTR(-ERROR) will be returned. If debugfs is not enabled in the kernel,
> + * the value %ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) will be returned.
> */
> struct dentry *debugfs_create_u32_array(const char *name, umode_t mode,
> struct dentry *parent,
> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ struct dentry *debugfs_create_u32_array(const char *name, umode_t mode,
> struct array_data *data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> if (data == NULL)
> - return NULL;
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> data->array = array;
> data->elements = elements;
There is only one caller of this function in the kernel now, and it does
not even care about the return value at all, so we should just remove
the return value entirely as that's the easiest and best thing to do
here. I was going to start doing this slowly over time, but as you are
touching the function now, might as well do it here :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists