linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sun4i: 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191101145343.4nazxxztj5sfcuxm@hendrix>
Date:   Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:53:43 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To:     zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
Cc:     broonie@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz,
        tiwai@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sun4i: Use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO to simplify the code

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:55:42PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
> On 2019/11/1 17:13, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:09:39PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
> >> It is better to use PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO rather than if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c | 4 +---
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c b/sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c
> >> index d0a8d58..72012a6 100644
> >> --- a/sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c
> >> +++ b/sound/soc/sunxi/sun4i-i2s.c
> >> @@ -1174,10 +1174,8 @@ 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 don't find it "better". This couples the error handling and the
> > success case, and it makes it harder to extend in the future.
>
> PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO has implemented the if(IS_ERR(...)) + PTR_ERR. It is
> feasible to replace it and more readable at least now.
>
> As you said,  PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO should be removed ? :-(

No, I'm saying that in this context, this change isn't necessary.

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)