[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <LV3PR11MB87683FDAF790D779C8E91FBCF51DA@LV3PR11MB8768.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:50:32 +0000
From: "Kumar, Kaushlendra" <kaushlendra.kumar@...el.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org"
<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
<rafael@...nel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] arch_topology: Fix incorrect error check in
topology_parse_cpu_capacity()
On [Date], Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:
> > returns NULL. Replace with IS_ERR_OR_NULL() which correctly identifies
> > only valid pointers, ensuring clk_get_rate() is called only with valid
> > clock objects.
>
> * Can the change description be refined based on documented macro call properties?
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17-rc7/source/include/linux/err.h#L101-L123
>
> * How do you think about to add any tags (like "Fixes" and "Cc") accordingly?
Hi Markus,
Thank you for the valuable feedback and the documentation reference.
Created a v2 patch with the corrected description based on the documented
behavior.
Best regards,
Kaushlendra
Powered by blists - more mailing lists