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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5DBD969E.9010706@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 2 Nov 2019 22:45:50 +0800
From:   zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
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 2019/11/1 22:53, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> 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.
I am not an expert in the field.  It depends on you.
> Maxime