Re: [PATCH] drivers: virtio: Use PTR_RET function

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

Alexandru Gheorghiu <gheorghiuandru@gmail.com> writes:

> Used PTR_RET function instead of IS_ERR and PTR_ERR.
> Patch found using coccinelle.

WTF is PTR_RET?  PTR_RET doesn't return anything.  Why is it called
that?  It doesn't even make sense.

ZERO_OR_PTR_ERR() maybe.

But what problem are we solving?  Insufficient churn in the tree?  Code
being too readable?  This isn't some hard-to-get right corner case, or a
missed optimization.

Andrew, what am I missing here?

Grumpy,
Rusty.

> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gheorghiu <gheorghiuandru@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c |    5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c
> index 1ba0d68..d1e664f 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_mmio.c
> @@ -567,10 +567,7 @@ static int vm_cmdline_set(const char *device,
>  	pdev = platform_device_register_resndata(&vm_cmdline_parent,
>  			"virtio-mmio", vm_cmdline_id++,
>  			resources, ARRAY_SIZE(resources), NULL, 0);
> -	if (IS_ERR(pdev))
> -		return PTR_ERR(pdev);
> -
> -	return 0;
> +	return PTR_RET(pdev);
>  }
>  
>  static int vm_cmdline_get_device(struct device *dev, void *data)
> -- 
> 1.7.9.5