Re: [PATCH RESEND 6/6] clk: s5p-g2d: Fix incorrect usage of IS_ERR_OR_NULL

Julia Lawall
2013-01-03T09:14:13Z

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 06:31:53PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 08:10 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > clk_get() returns NULL if CONFIG_HAVE_CLK is disabled.
> > >
> > > I told Tony about this but everyone has been gone with end of year
> > > holidays so it hasn't been addressed.
> > >
> > > Tony, please fix it so people don't apply these patches until
> > > clk_get() is updated to not return NULL. It sucks to have to revert
> > > patches.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > dan carpenter
> >
> > I posted the query to Mike Turquette, linux-kernel and linux-arm-kernel
> > mailing lists, regarding the return of NULL when HAVE_CLK is undefined.
> >
> > Short Answer: A return value of NULL is valid and not an error therefore
> > we should be using IS_ERR, not IS_ERR_OR_NULL on clk_get results.
> >
> > I see the obvious problem this creates, and asked this question:
> >
> > If the driver can't operate with a NULL clk, it should use a
> > IS_ERR_OR_NULL test to test for failure, rather than IS_ERR.
> >
> >
> > And Russell's answer:
> >
> > Why should a _consumer_ of a clock care? It is _very_ important that
> > people get this idea - to a consumer, the struct clk is just an opaque
> > cookie. The fact that it appears to be a pointer does _not_ mean that
> > the driver can do any kind of dereferencing on that pointer - it should
> > never do so.
> >
> > Thread can be viewed here:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/20/105
> >
>
> Ah. Grand. Thanks...
>
> Btw. The documentation for clk_get() really should include some of
> this information. I know Russell thinks that the driver authors are
> stupid and lazy, and it's probably true. But if everyone makes the
> same mistake over and over, then it probably means we could put a
> special note:
>
> "Do not check this with IS_ERR_OR_NULL(). Null values are not an
> error. Drivers should treat the return value as an opaque cookie
> and they should not dereference it."
>
> This is probably there in the file somewhere else, but I searched
> for "opaque", "cookie", and "dereference" and I didn't find
> anything. I'm not saying the documentation isn't perfect, just that
> driver authors are lazy and stupid but we can't kill them so we have
> to live with them.

I still think it would also be helpful for the definition that returns
NULL to have some documentation associated with it. Having a feature
disabled and then trying to use the feature could reasonably considered to
lead to a failure, so it is not obvious what the NULL represents.

julia