linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] ASoC: sun4i-i2s: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO in sun4i_i2s_init_regmap

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

Message-ID: <5b15becf-b79b-ae5d-91e2-6521ded50946@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:34:37 +0800
From:   Yuehaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
CC:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Marcus Cooper <codekipper@...il.com>,
        Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul@...il.com>,
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] ASoC: sun4i-i2s: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO in
 sun4i_i2s_init_regmap_fields()

On 2019/8/22 22:18, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 06:52:52AM +0000, YueHaibing wrote:
>> Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO rather than if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR
>>
>> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c | 5 +----
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c b/sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c
>> index 9e691baee1e8..2071c54265f3 100644
>> --- a/sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c
>> +++ b/sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c
>> @@ -1095,10 +1095,7 @@ static int sun4i_i2s_init_regmap_fields(struct device *dev,
>>  	i2s->field_fmt_sr =
>>  			devm_regmap_field_alloc(dev, i2s->regmap,
>>  						i2s->variant->field_fmt_sr);
>> -	if (IS_ERR(i2s->field_fmt_sr))
>> -		return PTR_ERR(i2s->field_fmt_sr);
>> -
>> -	return 0;
>> +	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(i2s->field_fmt_sr);
> 
> I'm not really convinced that this more readable or more maintainable
> though. Is there a reason for this other than we can do it?

No special reason, just suggested by scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci

> 
> Maxie
> 
> --
> Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
>