Re: [PATCH] HID: usbkbd: return proper error code

[Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 10:03 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Sudip Mukherjee
> <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Use proper error code instead of using -1 on failure to allocate
>> memory. We may use the error code later in the caller.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>
>> ---
>>   drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c | 10 +++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c b/drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c
>> index 9a332e6..ee53359 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hid/usbhid/usbkbd.c
>> @@ -249,15 +249,15 @@ static void usb_kbd_close(struct input_dev *dev)
>>   static int usb_kbd_alloc_mem(struct usb_device *dev, struct usb_kbd *kbd)
>>   {
>>          if (!(kbd->irq = usb_alloc_urb(0, GFP_KERNEL)))
>> -               return -1;
>> +               return -ENOMEM;
>
> While you are it, the code would look better like this:
>
> kbd->irq = usb_alloc_urb(0, GFP_KERNEL)
> if (!kbd->irq)
>      return -ENOMEM;
>

Yes, it will. But that will become two changes in one patch. I will send 
a series with this sent patch and another patch to reorder the assignment.

regards
sudip