[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160302112129.GQ5273@mwanda>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:21:29 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jonas Jensen <jonas.jensen@...il.com>,
Luis de Bethencourt <luis@...ethencourt.com>,
françois romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] net: moxa: fix an error code
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Did you find more of these?
>
> it doesn't matter much either way, but if you do multiple such patches,
One or two. I already sent the fixes. I think it was applied.
> I'd suggest using a single PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() instead of IS_ERR()+PTR_ERR().
>
> I have found a couple of drivers in which that leads to better object
> code, and avoids a warning about a possibly uninitialized variable
> when the function gets inlined into another one (which won't happen
> for this driver).
Huh? I sent one where I could have done that but I deliberately didn't
because I wanted the uninitialized warning if I made a mistake. It
sounds like you're working around a GCC bug...
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists