All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Silviu-Mihai Popescu <silviupopescu1990@gmail.com>,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, tony@atomide.com, khilman@ti.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:39:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <514CA544.5080006@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130322163650.GN30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>


On 03/22/2013 11:36 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:28:47PM -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Sorry I am now not sure I follow you here. Someone just pointed out to
>> me that PTR_RET() is defined as ...
>>
>> static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr)
>> {
>> 	if (IS_ERR(ptr))
>> 		return PTR_ERR(ptr);
>> 	else
>> 		return 0;
>> }
>>
>> So the above change appears to be equivalent. Is there something that is
>> wrong with the current implementation that needs to be fixed?
> 
> No - I misread it as PTR_ERR not PTR_RET.  Your patch is fine.

Thanks for confirming. I had made the same mistake recently too!

Jon

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jon-hunter@ti.com (Jon Hunter)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:39:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <514CA544.5080006@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130322163650.GN30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>


On 03/22/2013 11:36 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:28:47PM -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Sorry I am now not sure I follow you here. Someone just pointed out to
>> me that PTR_RET() is defined as ...
>>
>> static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr)
>> {
>> 	if (IS_ERR(ptr))
>> 		return PTR_ERR(ptr);
>> 	else
>> 		return 0;
>> }
>>
>> So the above change appears to be equivalent. Is there something that is
>> wrong with the current implementation that needs to be fixed?
> 
> No - I misread it as PTR_ERR not PTR_RET.  Your patch is fine.

Thanks for confirming. I had made the same mistake recently too!

Jon

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Silviu-Mihai Popescu <silviupopescu1990@gmail.com>,
	<linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, <tony@atomide.com>,
	<khilman@ti.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:39:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <514CA544.5080006@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130322163650.GN30923@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>


On 03/22/2013 11:36 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 01:28:47PM -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Sorry I am now not sure I follow you here. Someone just pointed out to
>> me that PTR_RET() is defined as ...
>>
>> static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr)
>> {
>> 	if (IS_ERR(ptr))
>> 		return PTR_ERR(ptr);
>> 	else
>> 		return 0;
>> }
>>
>> So the above change appears to be equivalent. Is there something that is
>> wrong with the current implementation that needs to be fixed?
> 
> No - I misread it as PTR_ERR not PTR_RET.  Your patch is fine.

Thanks for confirming. I had made the same mistake recently too!

Jon


  reply	other threads:[~2013-03-22 18:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-12  7:58 [PATCH] mach_omap2: use PTR_RET instead of IS_ERR + PTR_ERR Silviu-Mihai Popescu
2013-03-12  7:58 ` Silviu-Mihai Popescu
2013-03-12 11:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-03-12 11:05   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-03-20 18:28   ` Jon Hunter
2013-03-20 18:28     ` Jon Hunter
2013-03-20 18:28     ` Jon Hunter
2013-03-21 18:33     ` Silviu Popescu
2013-03-21 18:33       ` Silviu Popescu
2013-03-22 16:36     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-03-22 16:36       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-03-22 18:39       ` Jon Hunter [this message]
2013-03-22 18:39         ` Jon Hunter
2013-03-22 18:39         ` Jon Hunter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=514CA544.5080006@ti.com \
    --to=jon-hunter@ti.com \
    --cc=khilman@ti.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=silviupopescu1990@gmail.com \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.