[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200107051521.GF705@sol.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 21:15:21 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] treewide: remove redundent IS_ERR() before error code
check
On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 01:58:33PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 'PTR_ERR(p) == -E*' is a stronger condition than IS_ERR(p).
> Hence, IS_ERR(p) is unneeded.
>
> The semantic patch that generates this commit is as follows:
>
> // <smpl>
> @@
> expression ptr;
> constant error_code;
> @@
> -IS_ERR(ptr) && (PTR_ERR(ptr) == - error_code)
> +PTR_ERR(ptr) == - error_code
> // </smpl>
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Any reason for not doing instead:
ptr == ERR_PTR(-error_code)
? To me it seems weird to use PTR_ERR() on non-error pointers. I even had to
double check that it returns a 'long' and not an 'int'. (If it returned an
'int', it wouldn't work...)
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists