netdev - Re: ERR_PTR pattern in phylib

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1009021617500.410@eddie.linux-mips.org>
Date:	Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:20:34 +0100 (BST)
From:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
cc:	Andy Fleming <afleming@...escale.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: ERR_PTR pattern in phylib

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Grant Likely wrote:

> I've been looking at the phylib code, and specifically at the use of
> the ERR_PTR() pattern.  I'm personally not a big fan of ERR_PTR()
> because the compiler cannot type check the result and it runs
> completely counter to the pattern "if (!ptr)" than is common for
> testing a pointer return value.

 Arguably using a union here would make things cleaner and any reasonable 
ABI will place small unions used as arguments or return values in 
registers, but I'm not sure if the cost of the rewrite is worth the 
benefit.  Probably not, but feel free to propose a change.

  Maciej
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html