[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200921112425.GK3950626@ulmo>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:24:25 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 27/34] i2c: tegra: Check errors for both positive and
negative values
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 04:50:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 01:39:59AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>
> > Why? All of these functions "return 0 on success or a negative error
> > code on failure", don't they?
>
> And what is the point of having ' < 0' in all those cases?
It's explicitly checking for the documented error cases. And you'll
occasionally have a function that can return non-zero on success.
Testing for < 0 is the safest way to check for failure in the majority
of cases.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists