From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:55:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] input: fix odd_ptr_err.cocci warnings
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602170724320.2685@hadrien>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602170724320.2685@hadrien>
Message-ID: <6833564.Kp6CL1O0GI@wuerfel>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wednesday 17 February 2016 07:29:05 Julia Lawall wrote:
> PTR_ERR should access the value just tested by IS_ERR
> 
> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/tests/odd_ptr_err.cocci
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
> ---
> 
> I haven't checked the context in detail. There can be false positives,
> when it is the call to IS_ERR that is wrong.
> 
> tree:   https://github.com/Broadcom/arm64-linux iproc-tsc-v2
> head:   ef32cf1baeb934bfcdf7c9eb8ad345aae266cde5
> commit: c3afc7a1c330ce452c52e2183a23b2ab9f70bd4a [2/3] input: syscon
> support in bcm_iproc_tsc driver
> 
> Please take the patch only if it's a positive warning. Thanks!
> 
> 

Looks correct to me

Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

>                 if (IS_ERR(priv->regmap)) {
> -                       error = PTR_ERR(priv->regs);
> +                       error = PTR_ERR(priv->regmap);

I think this could have been avoided using

		error = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(priv->regmap);
		if (error) {
			...

	Arnd