From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:39:42 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: PTR_RET can be used
Message-Id: <50154B2E.2090900@bfs.de>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20120729004550.GA7049@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20120729004550.GA7049@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org



Am 29.07.2012 14:14, schrieb Fengguang Wu:
>>> --- linux.orig/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_filter.c	2012-07-29 08:41:09.703759534 +0800
>>> +++ linux/net/bridge/netfilter/ebtable_filter.c	2012-07-29 08:41:14.255759643 +0800
>>> @@ -100,9 +100,7 @@ static struct nf_hook_ops ebt_ops_filter
>>>  static int __net_init frame_filter_net_init(struct net *net)
>>>  {
>>>  	net->xt.frame_filter = ebt_register_table(net, &frame_filter);
>>> -	if (IS_ERR(net->xt.frame_filter))
>>> -		return PTR_ERR(net->xt.frame_filter);
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +	return PTR_RET(net->xt.frame_filter);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>
>> i do not understand this,
>> ebt_register_table() return (struct ebt_table *) on success
>>
>> Does PTR_RET really return 0 if this is a propper pointer ?
> 
> Right. Here is how PTR_RET defined. This patch does not change any behavior.
> 
> static inline int __must_check PTR_RET(const void *ptr)
> {      
>         if (IS_ERR(ptr))
>                 return PTR_ERR(ptr);
>         else   
>                 return 0;
> }
> 


ok, my brain mixed it with  PTR_ERR(), leading to the question.

re,
 wh


> Thanks,
> Fengguang
> 
>