[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210624092323.GP22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:23:23 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Tang Bin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: bL_switcher: use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() to simplify code
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:42:23PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/bL_switcher.c b/arch/arm/common/bL_switcher.c
> index 9a9aa5354..b8e8e2567 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/common/bL_switcher.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/common/bL_switcher.c
> @@ -352,11 +352,9 @@ int bL_switch_request_cb(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int new_cluster_id,
>
> t = &bL_threads[cpu];
>
> - if (IS_ERR(t->task))
> - return PTR_ERR(t->task);
> - if (!t->task)
> - return -ESRCH;
> -
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(t->task))
> + return t->task ? PTR_ERR(t->task) : -ESRCH;
> +
> spin_lock(&t->lock);
> if (t->completer) {
> spin_unlock(&t->lock);
I don't think this improves the code. The original is more readable, and
readability is what we care about rather than code compactness.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists